Colin Cole to his solicitor

 

     Tuesday, February 05, 2008
J R
Dear J  . . . . . . . . re dispute 243/243a Portland Rd.
 

 

http://www.dwf.co.uk/downloadfile.aspx?ID=284.
Hatton v Sutherland

A line of recent cases has placed significant obstacles in the way of Claimants bringing successful "stress" claims (involving bullying and harassment or otherwise). The lead case remains Hatton -v- Sutherland [2002] 2 AER 1 in which the Court of Appeal laid down sixteen "practical propositions" which will normally determine

whether such claims will succeed. Amongst other things, the Court of Appeal stated that an employer is usually entitled to assume that the employee can withstand the normal pressures of the job and is generally entitled to take what he is told by his employees at face value unless he has good reason to think to the contrary.

In summary, Hatton established a high threshold of foreseeability: unless there was a real risk of breakdown which the Claimant's employers ought reasonably to have foreseen and ought properly to have averted there will be no liability.
http://www.bto.co.uk/articles/INS_articles_53.htm
As we saw from the Article “More Stress on Employers” which appeared in the February 2007 Edition of BTO Insight, in harassment cases it is necessary for the pursuer to show that the harassment resulted in a diagnosable psychiatric injury.


Affidavit wwwww kkkkk
24 “ I am alarmed at the content of his faxes, emails and web-sites and find his behaviour deeply distressing. It is causing me considerable stress, which is impacting on my sleeping behaviour, which in turn is affecting my work. I also have an elderly dependant at home and this is also causing her considerable distress.”


Then why did you tell her about it  wwwwww? That’s why I didn’t send the letter to your home.  . . . . . did she find the web-sites while she was ‘silver surfing’ or in a chat room?  You’re a Company Director for Christ sake. Do you burst into tears every time someone does something you don’t like?
 

 

These greedy bastards are suing me for £50,000 . . . that’s right . . . . £50 grand the sort of money you can expect if you lose two legs. PLUS these greedy solicitors have submitted costs of £15,000 for what can only be described as a day on a photo copier . . . copying a foot thick pile of totally irrelevant files and pages . . totally irrelevant to a charge of harassment..

http://www.cfs-law.com/costs-issue.html

Personal Injury - Costs Issue In Exaggerated Claim

The Recorder, although accepting that the claimant had indeed exaggerated her claim, ordered the University to pay the full costs of Ms Painting’s action. He stated that the £10,000 lodged in court was a figure that the claimant could in no circumstances be expected to accept and was unlikely to meet any award beyond one which found the claim to be fraudulent from its inception, and that was never likely to occur.

The University now appealed the decision on the issue of the costs. The Court of Appeal found that the Recorder had failed to address which party was in fact the overall winner. The Court declared that, although Ms Painting had beaten the lodgement, the overall winner was in fact the University. The Recorder had found Ms Painting to have exaggerated her injuries and indeed the two day hearing was mainly concerned with this sole issue. Furthermore, the totality of the judgement was overwhelmingly in favour of the University.

Additionally the Recorder failed to properly weigh the balance between the deliberately misleading claim as against the inadequacy of the payment into court. It was further noted as significant that the claimant had made no attempt to negotiate at any stage of the proceedings or and had not entered a counter proposal to the payment into court. Lord Justice Longmore added that intentional and fraudulent exaggeration is a very important element which needs to be addressed in any assessment of costs and had it not been for this exaggeration there was a strong likelihood that the claim would have settled at an early stage and with modest costs.

The Court of Appeal set aside the order and allowed the claimant her costs up until the time that the university was granted permission to withdraw all but £10,000 of the payment into court. The Claimant was ordered to pay the University’s costs.

Hooper & Another -v- Biddle & Co (a firm) 2006

The Claimants initially claimed damages against the Defendant of £3.75million. Liability was denied. Draft particulars of Claim were served on the Defendant claiming £3.75million damages, costs and interest. The Claimants suggested mediation, this was rejected by the Defendant on the grounds that the Claimants had not particularised the claim.

The Claimants then formally served the Particulars of Claim seeking £350,000 damages. A single joint expert valued the Claimants’ loss at £38,000. This was disputed by the Claimant who suggested mediation. The Defendant made a without prejudice offer that was rejected. The Claimant then made a Part 36 offer to take £38,000 plus costs which the Defendant rejected. The Defendant offered £38,000 with no Order for costs on a without prejudice basis, this was rejected. The next offer made by the Defendant was an open one of £38,000 with no interest but with the Court determining cost which was accepted by the Claimants. The Claimants argued that they were the winners and should recover their costs. The Defendant argued that the Claimants had grossly inflated their claim and accepted a fraction more than 10% of their original claim.

High Court Decision

The Court could look a parties conducts when assessment costs. Considering the Claimants’ conduct, the correct Order was to make no Order as to costs. It was not right to conclude that the Claimants had won the case. The Claimants had accepted an offer that represented only 10% of their originally pleaded claim which could not be regarded as a significant win. The claim had been exaggerated and it was clear that the original Particulars of Claim had not been properly based on expert evidence.

Discussion

This is not a Local Authority case but is relevant to the question of exaggerated claims and how to deal with them. This case follows on from the important personal injury case of Painting -v- University of Oxford to the effect that a Claimant who grossly exaggerates his pleaded case is seriously at risk on costs. Given the fact that it is not infrequently the case that the amount of costs claimed either approaches or exceeds the overall figure for damages, it will be appreciated how important the principle established by Painting is. Defendants should not be frightened by grossly exaggerated claims, appropriate early offers should be made to settle and conduct is all important. If the Defendant’s conduct is blameless then very substantial savings on costs can potentially be made.

Also;  Finster v Arriva London & another • Davies Lavery – The Brief • March 2007

 

 

A claim settled for £1.39mn less than its pleaded value was exaggerated and the claimant should not recover costs incurred by exaggeration.
Do you seriously believe they are going to go to court and plead how distressed they were  J?


Yours Colin

 

wpfc5f272f.png

“OK Grandma . . . I’ll use those CROOKS at Metcalfe Copeman & Pettifar. . . They won’t mind deceiving the Court. . . . They’ll do anything for money. . . Theft and Ex torsion are not strangers to them”

”You’ll have to learn how to use one of these wwwww. If you could, you’d have known you were paying those GREEDY BASTARDS to lie to Mr Cole. . . It’s ALL here on his web-site. I know what we’ll do . You tell ‘em how upset I am  in tears

all the time and we’ll SUE HIM. Back to bed with you now all that “sleep you are losing” is wearing you out

These sites were created because Solicitors Ingram Winter Green and Denniss Matthews  will not respond to my many letters, and because The Law Society will not investigate all this:-
 The reason these sites are still here presumably, is because they are ALL not willing to answer the simple question . . “Did you or did you not conspire with your clients, S J Patel, Nathan & Ruth Teitelbaum of Fineland Properties Ltd,  to deliberately LIE, CHEAT and DECEIVE in order to DEFRAUD me of my  considerable claims against them?” . . well not in Court anyway. . . lying is one thing . . perjury another.  All the content of these sites is based on that premise, and NONE of it has ever been denied or even contested.
 For the removal of doubt, I have never called Daniel J Ginsbury “a lying, conniving, scheming piece of pig shit, low life life gutter scum”.
I merely ask the question? If all of the above is true would that make him one? Daniel Ginsbury declines to ans either the former or the latter. It is true that I accuse IWG of being a bunch of total Wankers for allowing these sites to be here and are not able to fathom a way out of this dilemma. Not worthy to call themselves Solicitors in fact.

 

DISCLAIMER . .  Click here

My claims made on this  and other web sites are based on the fact that Metcalfe Copeman & Pettefar ( MCP Law ) refuse to answer even the most basic of questions. They should have no reason, unless to do so would embarrass them or their clients in disclosure of lies, connivance, and conspiracy. In exactly the same fashion as the IWG, Denniss Matthews conspiracy. I have asked them over and over again to tell the truth but they have declined. It is reasonable and correct therefore to make the assumptions that I have and that are printed through out these sites. MCP Law still have the opportunity to refute these claims if they wish . . . Provided they can prove it that is.

 

In fact the reason they  didn’t refute them . . . is they were true. Lisa Richardson DID Conspire to Defraud.
Their clients DID NOT buy the property at AUCTION and they DID know about the dispute when they AGREED to buy the property. In fact they bought the property BECAUSE of the dispute. . . . All this has been sworn to under OATH by Jonathan Burton Solicitor at MCP. . . . But he calls it . . . . “Was not meant to deceive.”

2006

2008

wp552fe615.png
Law Society Protecting Crooked Solicitors . . . But not from me.. . . Colin Blasts IWG (Ingram Winter Green off the WEB in 2006) Their own site was bottom of page three the last time felt like going that far down the list to look for them.  . . In 2008 they are on their way out again . . Say bye bye to the Web IWG

“ These GREEDY bastards are suing me for £50,000 because one of the plaintiffs lost a few nights sleep he claims on oath.”