Emily Slater – threatening letter for an immediate anti-harassment injunction! 20121017

Following OTT letter of 28th March 2012, Miss Emily Slater proceeds down the personal harassment route of the 1997 Protection from Harassment Act on behalf of Mr Nick Statman and Mr Malcolm Statman – how dare I keep blogging about their Clients?

To give you a further example of Miss Emily Slater’s [wrongful and threatening] interpretation of a temporary High Court Undertaking I publish below a further letter from 17th October 2012. How dare I continue to act within the constraints of the law?? Once again Miss Emily Slater’s Law –  I was wrong and she was right …..

I just love number 4 below –

4) The alleged content of a meeting take took place with Nick and Malcolm Statman under the franchise agreement

I am still wanting to understand how you can have an alleged meeting with alleged content when a recording and transcript is submitted in Court in evidence …. even in the Trial it was an alleged meeting!


Our Ref: 103281.008/ES

Email: Emily.slater@cohencramer.co.uk

Mr S Brown

17th October 2012


Dear Mr Brown,

Our Clients: Gateway Homes Nationwide Franchise Ltd [Whitehall Franchise Ltd] & Gateway Homes UK Ltd

(1) Gateway Homes Nationwide Franchise Ltd [Whitehall Franchise Ltd] (2) Gateway Homes UK Ltd -v- Mr Stuart Brown

Claim Number: HQ 12X00803 [3BM90159]

We write with reference to the above matter and further to our letter of 28th March 2012, a further copy of which we now enclose for ease of reference.

We also enclose hard copies of recent postings that you have made on your website ‘www.stuartsblog.org’, within which you have posted ‘blogs’ that specifically reference our Clients and their directors, Nick and Malcolm Statman.

The blogs are both defamatory and harassing in nature, and despite our previous warnings you have continued to engage in this course of conduct.

harassment injunction against you.

Furthermore, we remind you of the undertakings that you provided to the Honourable Mr Justice Keith on 19th March 2012. We enclose a further copy of this Order for ease of reference.

We specifically refer you to Schedule B of the Order which contains undertakings that you have provided to the Court. These are promises that you have agreed to be legally bound by. Specifically, at paragraph I of this Schedule, you have undertaken not to disclose details of the nature of transactions, the number of leads, and the profit margins and at paragraph 2 the terms relating to remuneration and operation under the Agreements.

Notwithstanding that you have provided these undertakings, your blogsite discloses the following:-

1) That your franchise agreement was terminated in March 20 12;

2) The duration and areas included in your franchise agreement;

3) That Gateway as a ‘BMV’ company purchases priority with 20/25/30% off;

4) The alleged content of a meeting take took place with Nick and Malcolm Statman under the franchise agreement.

lt is our view that the above constitutes a breach of the undertakings.

As already indicated to you in previous correspondence attached to the undertaking that you have provided to the Court is a penal notice. This penal notice permits our Clients to make an application that you be committed for Contempt of Court. For the avoidance of doubt, Contempt of Court is a very serious matter, which with it carries penalties including a fine, imprisonment and/or seizing of assets.

Given the seriousness of a breach of your undertakings having been fully advised by Mr Justice Keith at the hearing on 19th March 2012 as to the consequences of the same, and that we have previously had to raise issue with the contents on your blogsite in our letter of  28th March 20 12, it is clear that you do not intend to abide by the promises that you have made to our Clients and more importantly the Court.

We therefore require you to remove all references to our Clients and Nick and Malcolm Statman by I pm on Thursday 18th October 20 12, failing which we shall revert to the Court with an application for contempt and your committal.

If we consider that a further breach of the undertaking has occurred or you continue to engage in correspondence or action that we consider to be a breach, we shall make an application to the High Court to consider whether you should be committed for contempt. We shall do this without further notice to you.

We trust that this will not be necessary.

Should you be in anyway unsure of your legal position, we recommend that you seek independent legal advice immediately.

Yours sincerely


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

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

Leave a Reply