Disposal Hearing – Seems like a bunch of excuses not to pay me anytime soon….

No negotiation on damages has taken place …. surprise surprise! And now no-one  is available to attend Court until 23rd September! [sorry, they can’t all get together ….]

So quick to get their own hearings organised, so slow to pay the price! The only hearings in two and a half years Mr Nick Statman and Mr Malcolm Statman have attended are the actual trial dates of 1st to 4th April 2014, submissions on 10th April 2014 and the judgement on 23rd April 2014.

Dear Sirs,

CPR 12.4 (a) “which will not normally last longer than 30 minutes”

On the basis that under CPR 12.4 Disposal Hearings (b) “at which the court will not normally hear oral evidence” and that the Claimants have 2 sets of Counsel these dates seem to be rather extreme.

Bizarrely and ironically the Claimants can/have been able to get Counsel immediately for seeking ex-parte injunctions and/or committal hearings …. But for costs and damages they are unavailable….

I maintain a request for the Court to issue as early a date as possible from today.


Stuart Brown

From: Emily Slater [mailto:Emily.Slater@CohenCramer.co.uk]
Sent: 26 June 2014 15:29
To: Birmingham High Court
Cc: Stuart Brown
Subject: GATEWAY HOMES / STATMAN V. BROWN (Claim Nos. 3BM90159 / 3BM90158)

Dear Sirs,

We write with reference to the above and pursuant to paragraph 5 the Order of HHJ Robert Owen QC  dated 23rd April 2014.

We attach a copy of the Claimants’ draft directions. The parties have attempted to agree directions, and the correspondence exchanged is set out below.

In terms of common ground, the parties both appear to agree that it will be necessary for the issue of costs and damages to be considered by a Judge at a disposal hearing. The Defendant has stated that he “cannot agree at all” to the Claimants’ proposed directions, however the only issue that has been raised is the Claimants’ proposed dates for listing, as the Defendant would like the matter dealt with more speedily than the first available date proposed in the Claimants’ draft directions.

For the Court’s information, availability for both of the Claimants’ and Counsel is from 23rd September onwards until the end of October. Should the Court be minded to list this matter in August, we can confirm that both Nick Statman and Counsel are available from 14th – 31st August, however Malcolm Statman is not available. Similarly, should the Court be minded to list this matter in September, although Malcolm Statman will be available from 1st September onwards, Nick Statman is unavailable until 23rd September. Claimants; Counsel is also unavailable on 18th September. The Claimants’ Counsel is unavailable throughout the entirety of July until 14th August. Therefore the first available date that both of the Claimants and their Counsel is available together is 23rd September 2014, in accordance with the Claimants’ draft directions.

We trust that this assists the Court and look forward to receiving confirmation of the Court’s further directions.

We confirm that the Defendant has been copied into this email.

Yours faithfully,

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

From: Stuart Brown
Sent: 26 June 2014 12:17
To: emily.slater@cohencramer.co.uk
Subject: RE: Statman / Gateway

Miss Slater,

I do not agree with this at all.

The disposal hearing should be at the first available date deemed by the Court from today and HH Judge Robert Owen QC’s first availability.

I can say now the dates I am not available – 6th to 12th August 2014 inclusive.

Stuart Brown

From: Emily Slater [mailto:Emily.Slater@CohenCramer.co.uk]
Sent: 26 June 2014 11:41
To: Stuart Brown
Subject: RE: Statman / Gateway

Dear Mr Brown,

I have taken my Clients’ instructions and have drafted directions as per the attached (i.e. that the matter proceeds to a disposal hearing).

I am conscious of holiday commitments throughout August (particularly that the Courts usually have a two week period during August where the judiciary are on holiday). I have therefore proposed the first available date after 15th September, which ought to be convenient for the Court to list.

I look forward to hearing from you confirming whether the directions can be agreed.

Yours sincerely,
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

From: Stuart Brown
Sent: 24 June 2014 12:32
To: emily.slater@cohencramer.co.uk
Subject: RE: Statman / Gateway

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.

Stuart Brown

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.

Yours sincerely

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

Cohen Cramer Limited provide services by solicitors in England and Wales and are authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority: SRA Number 607109. The SRA rules can be found at http://www.sra.org.uk .

Cohen Cramer Solicitors is a trading name of Cohen Cramer Limited, registered in England and Wales under Co Reg No: 8706697. Registered Office: Suite 1B, Jospeh’s Well, Hanover Walk, Leeds, LS3 1AB: VAT Reg Number 343 0220 13

You should carry out your own virus check before opening any attachment. Cohen Cramer accepts no liability for any loss or damage, which may be caused by software viruses or interceptions or interruption of this e-mail.

The contents of this email and any attachments are intended for the confidential use of the named recipient only. They may be legally privileged and should not be communicated to or relied upon by any person without the express written consent. If you are not the addressee (or have received this email in error) please notify us immediately on the following telephone number: 0113 244 0597 or by email info@cohencramer.co.uk.

Cohen Cramer is dedicated to delivering excellence to our clients. Any comments on our services would be appreciated.

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

Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply