Kaye Longhorn – further “obtuse” behaviour from Cohen Cramer

“Subject: RE: Failure to pay costs order – 3BM90158 & 3BM90159

Dear Mr Brown

Thank you for your email below.

To clarify, in our Points of Dispute our Client will be disputing the costs you have claimed in your recent witness statement. It is intended that these will be served on or before 19 June. As such, any application which you propose to make is premature and will be resisted.

We reserve our Client’s right to refer to this correspondence as to the question of costs should you proceed with the application in any event.

Yours sincerely

Kaye Longhorn

From: Kaye Longhorn [mailto:Kaye.Longhorn@CohenCramer.co.uk]
Sent: 06 June 2014 11:53
To: Stuart Brown
Cc: Michael McDonnell”

My response below –

Dear Miss Kaye Longhorn,

I see you continue in Miss Emily Slater’s vein of obtuse “co-operation” and evasive in clear answers in all correspondence matters. Would it have been that difficult on Tuesday to have defined “shortly” as being “on or before 19 June” or indeed maybe you could have been honest and said that due to Miss Emily Slater’s holiday she has not only failed to acknowledged receipt she has not prepared the required paperwork on the Costs Order and no one at Cohen Cramer can prepare these documents in her absence…..

As previously advised costs are accruing daily interest.

I look forward to receiving the quoted paperwork on or before 19th June 2014. In any case it will be referred to HH Judge Robert Owen QC, as I predict will the damages claim as negotiation is clearly not in the vocabulary of Mr Nick Statman, Mr Malcolm Statman or your good selves at Cohen Cramer.”

Blogger, Writer, SEO Consultant, Litigant In Person, SMM Consultant, Web Researcher

Tagged with: , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply