You're right that he/she was independent but he/she was chosen by SGH and agreed to by WTG....
You're dead right too about the warranty claim, BTW, but my question was about the new threatened claim for fraud which was clearly refused by the barrister as stated in WTG's RNS. I can only assume that was accurate as it would be a very silly thing to state publicly if not.
So back to my original question: any ideas why SGH are going against the independent barrister who they chose?
Perhaps it was a cock-up: maybe he/she was actually a barrista....but they didnt spot the error during DD
(20min delay)