Annex 3
Letter to Mr Vyan Gresty
from David Price, Solicitors
MARIA
FERNANDES
I write further to your letter of 8 November.
My client strongly denies what is said by you as
regards the cause of your wife's unfortunate illness and she wishes
her a speedy recovery.
However, the fact of the matter remains that your
wife has obligations to my client and to her clients. My client
also has obligations to her clients which include the protection
of their confidences. A confidence between a client and a lawyer
is of supreme importance, much in the same way as the confidences
of a patient and a doctor.
I enclose a copy in an article published in the Mail
on Sunday on 3 June 2001. While it may be the case that your wife
did not authorise the publication of the article, it is also equally
clear that she is the ultimate source of the allegations contained
in the article. This is apparent from the statement which she
allegedly gave to Eileen Eggington.
The information emanating from your wife and contained
in the article is entirely false. It has caused very significant
harm to the reputation of my client. The Mail on Sunday has now
offered to publish an apology and correction to my client as well
as offering her compensation for the injury caused to her reputation.
However, that cannot undo all the harm caused to her and her clients.
You say that your wife has acted through this period
with the "utmost honesty". While that may be the case,
the fact of the matter is that as a result of her actions a newspaper
article has been published that has misinformed the millions of
readers of the Mail on Sunday and caused unjustified injury to
my client's reputation and to that of her client both of whom
were owned a duty both legal and moral by your wife, which was
broken when she spoke to Eileen Eggington. Ultimately, your wife
bears responsibility for the article.
The plain fact of the matter is that whatever her
condition, your wife has responsibilities. You say that she has
acted entirely in the public interest but that is a matter of
judgement, as is evident from what appeared in the Mail on Sunday
article, is not to be relied on.
My client echoes the sentiment that a line should
be drawn under the period of your wife's employment by my client.
However, in order for that to be done, it is necessary that my
client is given sufficient comfort that there will be no further
disclosure of information concerning her firm or her clients.
This is not an "insensitive intrusion",
to use your words, it is simply an assurance that your wife should
be able to give and is wholly consistent with the obligations
both legal and moral in respect of which she is bound.
I look forward to hearing from you. If you wish to
discuss the matter with me on the telephone, please feel free
to do so.
22 November 2001
| 
