Nick and Malcolm Statman vs Stuart Brown Verdict Transcript (23/04/2014)- Pages 61 to 65 (of 75)

Kaye Longhorn and Gemma Burkett - Emily Slater's sidekicks ....

APPROVED JUDGMENT (contd… Pages 61 to 65 of 75)

273. The real concern expressed by both claimants in the witness box was that they had been accused of perjury which they said they found to be upsetting and offensive.  Mr Malcolm Statman accepted that his upset, apparently, was because he understood the allegations of perjury were without foundation and were ‘ludicrous’.  He accepted that if the defendant had used the incorrect legal term (perjury) but in fact had reasonable grounds  to complain, as a victim, of a different wrong (procuring his wrongful arrest) his reaction and attitude would have been different.

Read more ›

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

Nick and Malcolm Statman vs Stuart Brown Verdict Transcript (23/04/2014)- Pages 56 to 60 (of 75)

Oliver Barber and Nick Statman - Still partners?

APPROVED JUDGMENT (contd… Pages 56 to 60 of 75)

245. The defendant’s response is that he has not committed any offence or harassed anybody, not least the claimants, if they have regard to the terms of this blog and to the information which is available, for example, in the OFT report. He repeated his observation, as he did in the other action, that it is not permissible to wipe two years from his CV and, in effect, prevent him from sharing his experiences with others, provided he does not do so unlawfully.  The submission of Miss Omar was that, yet again, it is not good enough simply to complain about negative comments which may be annoying or upsetting to the reader.  The clear line has to be crossed and, it was submitted, once again, as with this blog, the case does not get anywhere near to crossing that threshold.

Read more ›

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

Nick and Malcolm Statman vs Stuart Brown Verdict Transcript (23/04/2014)- Pages 51 to 55 (of 75)

Matthew Richardson Ex-UKIP

APPROVED JUDGMENT (contd… Pages 51 to 55 of 75)

222. As Mr Statman said in evidence, it was not his position that the document itself was a cause of fright or fear. What frightened him was that he did not know what might follow next or what the defendant might do next.

223. It was put to Mr Statman that the allegations were a cover, the purpose of which, along with the other action, was to stifle any form of criticism or expression of opinion by the defendant and that the substance of the claimant’s complaints are not such which, viewed objectively, could reasonably be expected to cause harm or distress or the kind of reaction which he and his father describe. It was put to him that the claimants did not suffer any such harmful reaction.  Miss Omar put to Mr Nick Statman each of the allegations.

Read more ›

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

Nick and Malcolm Statman vs Stuart Brown Verdict Transcript (23/04/2014)- Pages 46 to 50 (of 75)

Gateway Homes - Whitehall Franchise Ltd

APPROVED JUDGMENT (contd… Pages 46 to 50 of 75)

202. The evidence relied upon by the claimants in addition to the two statements used to support the ex parte and renewed injunction included the witness statement of Mr Statman of 6th March 2014, which deals with the entirety of the complaints made against the defendant, cross referenced where appropriate to the documents. At paragraph 36 of his statement Mr Statman (Snr) described how the harassment had personally affected him. In particular, he was, to use his terms, absolutely appalled and devastated at the impact which the defendant’s conduct had had upon his son. Read more ›

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

Nick and Malcolm Statman vs Stuart Brown Verdict Transcript (23/04/2014)- Pages 41 to 45 (of 75)

Adam Myers - trust ye not

APPROVED JUDGMENT (contd… Pages 41 to 45 of 75)

174. To go further and restrict any discussion or the revealing of any detail or prohibiting any kind of exchange of experiences in the field (or plain moaning) between franchisees would neither be realistic nor reasonable and, in my judgment, a duty of confidentiality extending that far would be impracticable and itself likely to be a source of disharmony amongst franchisees.  It was for that reason, I have no doubt, that the claimants never suggested during the passing of the internal emails between franchisees (copied in some instances to Mr Nick Statman) that the information now complained of was or might be in breach of the clause and why, in any event, they took a pragmatic approach when they were willing to accept the terms of the undertaking offered by the defendant, it appears with some input from Keith J on 19th March 2012. Read more ›

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

Nick and Malcolm Statman vs Stuart Brown Verdict Transcript (23/04/2014)- Pages 36 to 40 (of 75)

Oliver Barber and Nick Statman - Still partners?

APPROVED JUDGMENT (contd… Pages 36 to 40 of 75)

152. Later in his evidence, Mr Statman (Snr) qualified his concern by placing emphasis not upon his personal experience of distress but by reference to the distress he could feared would be caused to his son Nick, particularly in relation to the harassment allegations to which reference was made.  I mention this particular issue at this stage because at one stage I was concerned as to whether the defendant’s explanation for his publications and his denial of there being any malice or desire for vengeance was, in fact, reliable.  I was satisfied by the end of the evidence, however, by his response in relation to the ‘Jimmy Savile paedophile’ tagging complaint. He did not tag the relevant articles to the BBC News Jimmy Savile news article as a means of causing any kind of harassment or upset to the Statmans. Rather, as he openly explained, he simply used it as a means of gaining higher rankings for his own blogs. The BBC News article in relation to the sale of the Jimmy Savile penthouse was itself wholly innocuous in content and, of course, a matter of public interest which explains it high number of viewings online and coincidentally it had been purchased by Mr and Mrs Statman. It was no coincidence, of course, that the defendant chose to create the link but I did not consider that he was motivated by a desire to cause harm, merely to boost rankings. By linking his blog with the BBC article his blogs gained wider potential readership.  The defendant explained how the link worked. I accepted his explanation. Later in his evidence Mr Statman (Snr) appeared to shift his ground. The link did not literally associate his name with the words ‘Jimmy Savile paedophile’. It was simply linked to the innocuous BBC article. Mr Statman somewhat over dramatised the  effect of the link initially. Mr Statman had added ‘paedophile’ in his evidence after ‘Jimmy Savile’. He was not, in a number of respects, in addition to the dispute over his conduct in the meeting, a reliable witness. Read more ›

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

Nick and Malcolm Statman vs Stuart Brown Verdict Transcript (23/04/2014)- Pages 31 to 35 (of 75)

BetterMove - Whitehall Franchise Ltd

APPROVED JUDGMENT (contd… Pages 31 to 35 of 75)

131. Allegation (24) is dated October/November 2012.  This allegation is taken from the defendant’s witness statement at paragraph 8 in which the defendant stated:

“Following the striking out of my counterclaim, I decided on several courses of action:

(a) to publish a little of my research and e-book extracts on my blog as a precursor to the e-book launch just to gain some credibility within the industry sector.
(b) [This is the particular part about which complaint is made] to contact various authorities to try to get help from them as to what else I could do, particularly with regards to a new direct claim as opposed to a counterclaim.  These included:
(i) Trading Standards
(ii) The police
(iii) The fraud squad
(iv)  HMRC
(v)  Citizens Advice.
(vi)  The Advertising Standards Authority.” Read more ›

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

Nick and Malcolm Statman vs Stuart Brown Verdict Transcript (23/04/2014)- Pages 26 to 30 (of 75)

Sell House Now aka Gateway Homes UK Ltd

APPROVED JUDGMENT (contd… Pages 26 to 30 of 75)

112. The defendant then tagged this blog to the Gateway Homes companies.  Thus, the gravamen of this allegation is that in this blog the defendant has revealed information which would allow a third party to see that there was, in fact, a franchise agreement, that the duration of the agreement was 22 months and that the termination of that agreement was on 20th March 2012.  Mr Richardson developed the claimants’ complaints by arguing that any information in accordance with the clauses relied upon relating to the fact of the agreement was of itself confidential and, therefore, there was a breach of that clause by the defendant.  Read more ›

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

Nick and Malcolm Statman vs Stuart Brown Verdict Transcript (23/04/2014)- Pages 21 to 25 (of 75)

Matthew Richardson - Scarily UKIP Barrister

APPROVED JUDGMENT (contd… Pages 21 to 25 of 75)

89. Allegation (4) is the email of 16th February 2012 sent to Mr Barber.  In this email, the complaint is that the defendant used the following words:
“As I said, what becomes public, if anything, will be up to Mr Statman.”

90. The claimants make and made the same complaint to the effect that those words constituted a breach or threatened breach of the clause. The response of the defendant, articulated by Miss Omar, was the same as the response to the previous allegation, namely, the email was not capable of constituting an actual or threatened breach of the clause and has no substance capable of justifying an injunction, whether it be interim or permanent. Read more ›

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

Nick and Malcolm Statman vs Stuart Brown Verdict Transcript (23/04/2014)- Pages 16 to 20 (of 75)

Emily Slater Joke Quote Of The Day

APPROVED JUDGMENT (contd… Pages 16 to 20 of 75)

 67. The defendant relied upon the report to show that not only were the claimants part of the particular sector which was investigated by the OFT but that they were one of four companies which were expressly interviewed by the OFT.  The defendant’s contention is that this report reiterates matters already in the public domain traceable to the articles of April and September 2011 and also in the BBC television programme which had been televised prior to this report.

Read more ›

Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Top
%d bloggers like this: