Civil Recovery Firm lashes out at Consumer Forums after Court defeat

[MIKE770]

Re: Civil Recovery Firm lashes out at Consumer Forums after Court defeat

Afternoon all,

I have just 'come across' this post and have to say that Schillings are 'way off beam'!

The letter you sent to them via Finers Stephens Innocent LLP is excellent.

If Schillings want more exposure for both themselves and RLP, then I've got some good contacts in the media, both Press and TV........all they have to do is ask!!!

Best wishes everyone,

Dougal

PS: Message to Schillings : 'If you wonder why I have made the effort to post this message it is because I have found this Forum to be of great assistance in helping me through some very difficult times against those who seek to bend the law to suit their own, often financial, ends without regard for either the law or the truth.' The truth about RLP is out. Need I say more?

NEWS :HSBC Charges : NEXT hearing will now be on 26th July 2012 at a different
location!! Keep watching the News!!

HSBC Charges hearing soon, that is of great interest to me as a battle has recommenced with them. Keep us informed if you would please. Thanks

[bluebottle]

Re: Civil Recovery Firm lashes out at Consumer Forums after Court defeat

HI
I found this calclation intersting.

26. Moving on to consider the requirements of British Motor Trade, again very much the
same thing applies. Mr Dickson has set out the cost to Debenhams of maintaining safe
security equipment, £653,000 over their entire store network and that it costs per case
£92.25. I have no reason to doubt his figures. As I have said already, the reason why
those systems are maintained are, I accept, partly for health and safety, no doubt if
there was a fire alarm the security staff would help in evacuating the stores. I have no
doubt that that is true but they are also substantially there to prevent thefts from their
stores and that is a cost to the claimant which they would otherwise not have if there
were no thefts from their stores. So, again, I accept that falls within them having to
maintain a department to prevent the very actions that the defendant had caused to
them and that although the expenses probably cannot be precisely done, although Mr
Dickson does his best at £92.25, I accept there is a cost and that the £92.25 is the best
evidence that I have.

So it follows from this that if less people stole from these stores, each thief would have to pay a larger part of the running costs of these systems. Presumably if there was only one theft he would have to pay £653,000
The problem is of course that you need precisely the same amount of equipment to catch one thief as you need to catch a thousand so how can you quantify the cost.

Not that the cost is a result of the losses it is part of the running costs of the shop and is paid for out of the profits, as pointed out by the eminent judge in the Ms B hearing. Any revenue gained from these fined would be profit not recovered damges.

D

Exactly, Davy. And it flies in the face of the ruling in Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. Ltd. -v- New Garage & Motor Co. Ltd. 1915 in that a claimant cannot be in a better position financially than they were before, that is, they cannot make a profit from it.

[Dougal16T]

Re: Civil Recovery Firm lashes out at Consumer Forums after Court defeat

Wow. such a nice post. I like this one..............

Good evening ronitroy.....

Can you tell us exactly which post you like and what made you join Beagles today of all days?

It's always nice to now what and why......

Dougal

[Guest]

Re: Civil Recovery Firm lashes out at Consumer Forums after Court defeat

From the British Motor trade authority quoted.

"and the money actually expended in unravelling and detecting the unlawful machinations of the defendants which have been proved in this case before any proceedings could be taken must have been considerable."
Bit of a grand description for a security guard pulling someone for lifting a packet of pollo mints.

The case law presented can be easily distinguished from the application that RLP are trying to make of it.

The case in question is about breach of covenant, it is not about financial or actual loss. The breach is concerned with the failure of the buyer to abide by the agreed terms of the sale. An entirely different thing to the assessment of damages on the tort of conversion.

D

[bluebottle]

Re: Civil Recovery Firm lashes out at Consumer Forums after Court defeat

From the British Motor trade authority quoted.

"and the money actually expended in unravelling and detecting the unlawful machinations of the defendants which have been proved in this case before any proceedings could be taken must have been considerable."
Bit of a grand description for a security guard pulling someone for lifting a packet of pollo mints.

The case law presented can be easily distinguished from the application that RLP are trying to make of it.

The case in question is about breach of covenant, it is not about financial or actual loss. The breach is concerned with the failure of the buyer to abide by the agreed terms of the sale. An entirely different thing to the assessment of damages on the tort of conversion.

D

I think we can safely say that Davy has ripped RLP's arguments to shreds. Nice one, Davy.

[Dougal16T]

Re: Civil Recovery Firm lashes out at Consumer Forums after Court defeat

Morning all,

I agree a very good post, and an excellent 'perspective' view of the situation.

Just as an aside I wonder why 'Ronitroy' (see posts 153 and 155) has not responded. A spy perhaps??

Any thoughts anyone.....??

Best wishes, and remember

'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you' ......

'....But do it FIRST !!!':beagle:

Dougal

[enaid]

Re: Civil Recovery Firm lashes out at Consumer Forums after Court defeat

Think ronitroy was a potential spammer they often start like that, post again and throw in a link

[Galahad]

Re: Civil Recovery Firm lashes out at Consumer Forums after Court defeat

Why's that?

its a spammer.

I very much doubt the famous Bollywood actor Ronit Roy is actually joining up to be a concerned member of Legal Beagles!

[Loverat]

Re: Civil Recovery Firm lashes out at Consumer Forums after Court defeat

I am a new member and was guided here by an interest in the Schillings threats. I am sorry for joining the debate late but the discussion about the meaning of several words mentioned previously including 'extortion' reminded me of a well known internet defamation case. In defamation, it is not the dictionary definition of a word used which is so important but the context as the claimant (and his sorry solicitors) found out to his cost.

In the case first heard in the High Court several years ago, an individual sued around 30 people after a spat on a financial bulletin board. He had started off the argument by labelling a member of his own shareholder action group a 'fraudster'. Nearly all the participants were outraged at this accusation and then the insults and accusations started flying back in the claimant's direction. The claimant then threatened to sue all the people who responded and he demanded money from them on the public bulletin board. One example below of the threats but one of the sums demanded was £100,000 and similar threats and demands were numerous.

"You could have purged your libel at no cost, had you chosen to do so correctly yesterday. As you know, under the Defamation Act, I could seek liquidated damages of at least £10,000.

Therefore I feel that you ought to demonstrate your regret by making a donation of £100 to charity - by cashiers cheque payable to Edwin Coe Solicitors at 2 Stone Buildings, Lincoln''s Inn, London, WC2A 3TH. Shall we say by recorded delivery to arrive on Monday 23 April 2007".

Three defendants intimidated by the threats and subsequent letters paid sums totalling £20,000 and the claimant and his solicitor then proceeded to take the numerous other cases to court - for those who did not settle. The majority of the accusations were so trivial such as telling the claimant to 'grow up' or name calling and abuse - and many were participants in the discussion who had accused the claimant of 'extorting' money from people on a public bulletin board.

The cases were all dismissed as saloon banter and too trivial for the High Court. The claimant's threats were criticised and his solicitors slammed for their behavior. But the claimant appealed many times, until fairly recently when the cases were (I hear) quite literally laughed out of court. Anyway in the final hearing, this is the exchange between the judge and the claimant which was reported to me by someone who attended. It usefully puts the word 'extortion' into its proper context in the case:

The claimant: My Lord, the defendant defamed me!
Lord Justice: No, he called you a dickhead.
The claimant: He said that I was trying to extort money from other users on the bulletin board!
Lord Justice: Well, you were!
The original judement which preceded the appeals. An interesting and amusing case.
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup...method=boolean

Some discussion on the Schillings actions (and a previous failed libel case) over the last few days.

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/blogs/bl...ely-unfabulous


The outcome of all that was the claimant (while exempt from court fees) ended up owing substantial costs and his solicitors reported to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) for numerous protocol breaches and for allegedly breaching the SRA Code of Practice which deals with treating third parties fairly. Hopefully they now realise that in defamation, context is everything. It is amazing the law firms which fail to recognise that and judging by knowledge of the cases I mentioned, I might even suggest seeing a solicitor is about the worst thing for a defendant to do as they will almost definitely advise you to settle.

In my view, any individual receiving a letter of claim such as from Schillings should read the pre action protocol for defamation claims and use it as an opportunity to pick holes in the letter and claim and put the onus back on them to prove they have a viable case. Suing for defamation is extremely difficult and most cases fail nowadays. I have helped several people who received letters of claim in the past construct a reply and in all cases the claimant solicitor has never replied and the case was dropped.

[EXC]

Re: Civil Recovery Firm lashes out at Consumer Forums after Court defeat

Yes context is important in terms of defamation although the Schillings letter was largely really about harassment.

And interestingly it was the dictionary definition of 'harassment' that was the test for which the case law was used in the response to the Schillings letter.

http://www.legalbeagles.info/Letter%...2026_06_12.pdf

[Celestine]

Re: Civil Recovery Firm lashes out at Consumer Forums after Court defeat

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/al...-are-silencing

[Celestine]

Re: Civil Recovery Firm lashes out at Consumer Forums after Court defeat

Quoted directly from the Judgment linked by Loverat above:

1. The nature of bulletin boards
   
2. It is necessary to have well in mind the nature of bulletin board communications, which are a relatively recent development. This is central to a proper consideration of all the matters now before the court.
3. This has been explained in the material before me and is, in any event, nowadays a matter of general knowledge. Particular characteristics which I should have in mind are that they are read by relatively few people, most of whom will share an interest in the subject-matter; they are rather like contributions to a casual conversation (the analogy sometimes being drawn with people chatting in a bar) which people simply note before moving on; they are often uninhibited, casual and ill thought out; those who participate know this and expect a certain amount of repartee or "give and take".
4. The participants in these exchanges were mostly using pseudonyms (or "avatars"), so that their identities will often not be known to others. This is no doubt a disinhibiting factor affecting what people are prepared to say in this special environment.
5. When considered in the context of defamation law, therefore, communications of this kind are much more akin to slanders (this cause of action being nowadays relatively rare) than to the usual, more permanent kind of communications found in libel actions. People do not often take a "thread" and go through it as a whole like a newspaper article. They tend to read the remarks, make their own contributions if they feel inclined, and think no more about it.
6. It is this analogy with slander which led me in my ruling of 12 May to refer to "mere vulgar abuse", which used to be discussed quite often in the heyday of slander actions. It is not so much a defence that is unique to slander as an aspect of interpreting the meaning of words. From the context of casual conversations, one can often tell that a remark is not to be taken literally or seriously and is rather to be construed merely as abuse. That is less common in the case of more permanent written communication, although it is by no means unknown. But in the case of a bulletin board thread it is often obvious to casual observers that people are just saying the first thing that comes into their heads and reacting in the heat of the moment. The remarks are often not intended, or to be taken, as serious. A number of examples will emerge in the course of my judgment.

[Loverat]

Re: Civil Recovery Firm lashes out at Consumer Forums after Court defeat

Thanks for the replies.

Concerning the Smith case, the remarks about nature of bulletin boards were significant although the comments about slander or libel were the judges thoughts on the individual circumstances and are likely to be tested more robustly in the future. There is still lots of disagreement on this point although the judge covered himself by saying this:

1. I would not suggest for a moment that blogging cannot ever form the basis of a legitimate libel claim. I am focusing only on these particular circumstances.
   

I actually found this paragraph very interesting and a key point. Relevant to cases where the claimant is a participant in the discussions. There have been a few cases lately.


27. Rather laboriously, in his particulars of claim against Mr Love, Mr Smith attempts to define "appalling" by reference to "someone who acted in a manner that causes dismay, horror or revulsion to others". Yet the remarks on the bulletin board by these multiple defendants were not simply made in a vacuum. Any reader would know the context and recognise the conduct on Mr Smith 's part which was being characterised as "appalling" and be able to form his or own view of it. This means that Mr Smith 's reputation in the eyes of such a person is likely to depend primarily on what he himself has done, and is known to have done, rather than on what others are saying about it.


Concerning harassment, there have also been some instances where claimants have brought harassment actions for comments written on online (see below) although I think someone told me that civil harassment which I think the below are no longer exists? Someone here might be able to confirm that.

The first was the Law Society action against 'Solicitors From Hell' website. They brought defamation and harassment proceedings against the owner of the site. I actually thought the judge went too far in saying the listings represented harassment as it seemed to me this could open the door to anyone who objected to comments on a website.

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup...method=boolean

This judgement was, by co-incidence, the same law firm criticised in the Smith V ADVFN case - bringing a case of harassment against an individual who set up a website including negative commentary about them. The situation escalated and got out of hand after the law firm pursued him for alleged non payment of the congestion charge.

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup...method=boolean

Finally, another recent defamation case where the claimant participated in the discussions which led to the actions. The claimant was an author of a book which was criticised online. This judgement is a bit long winded unlike the more straight forward and confident writing style of EadyJ and Tugendhat.

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup...method=boolean

[CleverClogs]

Re: Civil Recovery Firm lashes out at Consumer Forums after Court defeat

Have you read the Wikipedia talk page (link) for Retail loss prevention?

It's hilarious!

[MIKE770]

Re: Civil Recovery Firm lashes out at Consumer Forums after Court defeat

Have you read the Wikipedia talk page (link) for Retail loss prevention?

It's hilarious!

Ditto!!