Murgatroyd v Wilkinson

[Butler]

This case was heard in March 2015. There has been great confusion as to what actually happened so I want to try to establish the facts. This is what I am told:

Mrs Wilkinson had her car taken by AW Wilson Bailiffs for a debt owed to Mr Murgatroyd. Mrs Wilkinson had already paid the debt direct to Mr Murgatroyd. The bailiff, Mr Thoburn, took the car to cover his fees which he was saying were ~£5000. Mrs Wilkinson showed him proof that the debt had been paid several weeks earlier.

Mrs Wilkinson injucted AW Wilson and the case was heard at Teesside Combined Court.

The judge ruled:

• The car to be returned and all fees to be removed.
• No order as to costs, to be decided at a further hearing.

The further costs hearing ruled that the bailiff, Mr Thoburn, pay Mrs Wilkinson all of her costs. AW Wilson paid them on his behalf.

On this forum Milo has said these details are wrong as he has a transcript of the case and I ask that he clarify any errors. He says he has had many enquiries about this case over the past 18 months, so it would be of benefit to post a copy of the transcript for everyone to see.

[Amethyst]

Re: Murgatroyd v Wilkinson

Without the Judgment Transcript there is no point in any further discussion of the case.

[Butler]

Re: Murgatroyd v Wilkinson

Without the Judgment there is no point in any further discussion of the case.

What I've posted is the judgement. If Milo has a different version I ask that he posts it up. Clearly due to the number of enquiries he's had about it, it must be of significance, so it's important we have accurate information. Milo says he has a full transcript of the case so I ask that he assists in clarifying the case. I cannot see what this issue is.

[Amethyst]

Re: Murgatroyd v Wilkinson

What I've posted is the judgement. If Milo has a different version I ask that he posts it up. Clearly due to the number of enquiries he's had about it, it must be of significance, so it's important we have accurate information. Milo says he has a full transcript of the case so I ask that he assists in clarifying the case. I cannot see what this issue is.

Well it isn't , it's your words, and 'what you've been told' ... not the judgment - I'm closing this thread now. Let's deal in evidence not supposition.

Case is this - Murgatroyd v Wilkinson, HHJ Matthews QC, Teeside Combined Court, (Court 3) March 24, 2015. - if anyone is that bothered, apply to the court for a transcript.