Page attacks 'Kafka-esque' pursuit of former directors at Equitable

Jennie Page, the woman who seems to be followed by corporate meltdowns wherever she turns, yesterday said she found herself in a "Kafka-esque universe" as she defended herself against negligence claims at Equitable Life.

A former chief executive of the ill-fated Millennium Dome and an ex-director of the now defunct Railtrack, she took the stand in the High Court with a trembling voice to ask for a £3.2bn claim for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty, against her and 14 other non-executives, to be thrown out.

Ms Page said: "I find it very difficult to speak about what being in this position has done to me without getting very emotional." Ms Page chose to represent herself in the action to have the claims against her struck out before going to trial.

Equitable, where Ms Page was a non-executive from 1994 to 2001, was forced to close to new business in December 2000 with a £1.5bn bill after the House of Lords ruled it had treated its policyholders unfairly. It is now suing 15 former directors for failing to stop the society's financial demise.

Nine former non-executives, including Ms Page and Peter Martin, are asking Mr Justice Langley to dismiss Equitable's case against them. They deny any breach of responsibility, saying that they believed and trusted information and advice given to them by the executive directors and their advisers.

The case centres on the decision by the board in 1993 ­ and upheld by every subsequent board until it was ruled illegal by the House of Lords in 2000 ­ to pay holders of guaranteed pension policies different bonuses to other policyholders.

It was claimed in court that John Sclater, the former chairman, and Chris Headdon, former appointed actuary, sought to play down to policyholders the significance of the change in bonus structure. In later correspondence, Mr Sclater described the change as a "delicate issue" and in another letter the communication to policyholders as "a bit devious".

Charges that the Equitable board was arrogant in the late 1990s were also made in a letter read out in court from Mr Martin, a non-executive between 1984 and 2001. In the letter, addressed to Mr Sclater and dated in 2002, Mr Martin writes that Mr Sclater always treated his views with "contempt" and would always choose to listen to his "own friends in the City" rather than the board. He said Mr Sclater "would listen to no one", "thought only of himself" and "stifled any votes against him".

The court heard an emotional appeal from Mr Martin, who also represented himself. He said the society's lawyers, Herbert Smith, had hounded him and his family mercilessly. Mr Martin, a former lawyer, said defending himself against the aggression with which Herbert Smith was pursuing him was like having a "pea shooter against a rhinoceros". Mr Martin said he would be ruined by the case going to trial and any damages awarded against him. "[Herbert Smith's] incessant harassment and intimidation has caused me great anxiety and has been conducted in the most aggressive way possible. They have been told to 'go for it' at whatever cost."

Ms Page, who admitted not being skilled in the discourse of legal argument, yesterday accused Equitable of putting forward a "fudgey" claim against her. She also said she did not know about the differential bonus policy treatment that was implemented in 1993, a point made clear by her repeated stumbling whenever she spoke of DTBP, the acronym this issue has been given.

Defending the right to proceed to trial, however, Iain Milligan QC, said all directors on the board carry the same responsibilities and no non-executive could hide behind limited knowledge of the business. The hearing continues.