Miss Emily Slater,
I have read your Clients Witness Statement, for what it is worth. Pray how do you propose we negotiate directions when you have failed in all attempts to negotiate settlement pre-trial and fail to acknowledge any liability post-trial and merely pass responsibility for your actions to a third party? You have jumped to wild conclusions about a Claim I have against a third party with no knowledge of its contents – just pure supposition – after all, that is what you and your clients do best, jump to the wrong conclusions. I am fully aware and appreciative of the double recovery rules and prepared my damages claim in the full knowledge of my barrister acting in this case and my solicitor acting in that third party Claim. I am also aware that you offered a near 50% payment for the 2 plus years outstanding invoice as well as paying for all my costs including the cost judgements against me which you claimed to be worth over £30,000 in an attempt to settle pre-trial – thus formally acknowledging your Clients liabilities.
I was asked to be succinct in what I submitted – which is the approach I took for both Costs and Damages – should the paperwork be deficient for your purposes I have plenty more.
To quote from the recent judgement
It appeared that the claimants had lost all sense of proportion and judgment in bringing and pursuing these proceedings, including two committal applications, which were unmeritorious, and their efforts in procuring the summary arrest of the defendant. Not one of the allegations of harassment complained of has merit.
You and your Clients Mr Malcolm Statman and Mr Nick Statman, Gateway Homes UK Ltd, Gateway Homes Nationwide Ltd [aka Propertybuyer aka Tom Craven Property aka BetterMove Estate Agents etc ] still wish to appear Teflon-coated in all matters and fail to take responsibility for your own actions.
Indeed, that was not the only occasion in the course of these proceedings that, on behalf of the claimants, Miss Slater’s judgment might be criticised. In particular, at the hearing on 19th March 2012 before Keith J the claimants were required, in the usual manner, to give a cross undertaking as to damages. Keith J’s note of 17th April 2012 shows that the claimants’ counsel told him that the claimants would give such an undertaking:
“What I was not prepared to order then that there be an assessment of such damages as the defendant claimed to have sustained by then as a result of those parts of Butterfield J’s order which I thought were questionable, such as the prohibition on the defendant from contacting any other franchisees or clients of the claimants if that would have the effect of preventing him from operating the franchises he was granted. The claimants’ solicitors are wrong [that is Miss Slater, whose robust letters to the court are a matter of record which need not be recited for present purposes] when they say that a cross undertaking as to damages is not normally given on applications made on notice for the continuation of interim injunctions granted without notice. Such an undertaking is required for any interim injunction unless the court otherwise orders. I did not order otherwise. On the contrary, I required such an undertaking. That is why I added that the undertaking to the draft order be prepared by the claimants’ counsel.”
Finally, the learned judge concluded: “Accordingly, the order that the court sealed dated 22nd March 2012 is correct.” The complaint made by Miss Slater that the order was incorrect and inappropriately referred to undertakings by the claimants was simply wrong. I should add that Miss Slater’s complaints to the court staff at the RCJ that the order was wrong were initially referred on a paper basis to Foskett J on 2nd April 2012, who observed that: “Contrary to the views expressed in the correspondence by Miss Slater, any order for an injunction, whether granted ex parte or otherwise, must contain a cross undertaking in damages unless the court orders otherwise (see practice direction 52 A, paragraph 5.1(1)). The issue seems to me to be whether Keith J did order otherwise and that is something that can only be answered by him.”
So may I suggest you rethink your position on liability and make a more reasonable offer on each count in my damages claim i.e. an amount that can be assessed by me as to its suitability for acceptance or not.
I shall prepare a detailed response on both Costs and Damages as I fear the chances of any sensible “negotiation” are slim.
I can confirm receipt of your notification of change of business address.
From: Emily Slater [mailto:Emily.Slater@CohenCramer.co.uk]
Sent: 23 June 2014 16:28
To: Stuart Brown
Subject: Statman / Gateway
Dear Mr Brown
We write further to service our Client’s witness statements. We trust you have now had the opportunity to consider the same and would be grateful for your comments in relation to the contents. We are mindful that the parties are required to attempt to negotiate directions and revert to the Court by Thursday 26 June, so we look forward to hearing from you by return.
Furthermore, we attach for your information a copy of a Notice of Change of Address in relation to our moving premises.
We can confirm that the same was filed at Court on Friday.
Emily Slater | Solicitor | Disputes
Direct Line: 0113 224 7800 | Switchboard: 0113 244 0597 | Facsimile: 0113 298 7363
Cohen Cramer Solicitors, Suite 1B Joseph’s Well, Hanover Walk, Leeds LS3 1AB | DX: 716924 Leeds 39 | www.cohencramer.co.uk