Defendant 5 – David Roberts REPRESENTED BY Nicola Hennessy, Claytons Law

THEIR EMAIL WAS SENT PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL, HOWEVER THERE IS NOTHING PRIVATE IN IT AS IT IS INCLUDED IN THE PUBLIC DOCUMENT OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SERVICE.

Accordingly where it is not on the acknowledgement of service I only include my response having deleted their “private and confidential” correspondence.

Marc Horn <maphorn@yahoo.com>

To:Nicola Hennessy
Cc:Robert Lloyd,Marc Horn,MAP
30 Mar at 19:43

Dear Nicola,

Thanks for your Acknowledgement of service.

Being so familiar with your procedures you no doubt do not need reminding you are required to send that to the court.

In regards Private and Confidential – For this matter to be resolved it must be done so openly and honestly. Private and confidential has little to no credibility as it restricts your beliefs and actions from public scrutiny and hence cannot be deemed helpful to resolve the issues as it cannot be relied upon as a genuine effort to resolve matters. It is human to err and so long as once it is pointed out we incorporate the new knowledge confirming our altered beliefs we are no longer knowingly causing harm.

Numbering your paragraphs as your email below I respond accordingly,

1. We refer to the above matter. – Noted.

2. We act on behalf of Wirral Solicitors Limited trading as David Roberts solicitors and their professional indemnity insurers. Noted

In respect of your client my claim additionally is against David Roberts in personam, as well as whilst acting for Pinnacle Student Buyers (Leeds) Limited and Pinnacle Student Development (Leeds) Limited.

3. Please find attached our Acknowledgement of Service to Claim number E30LV132. – Noted

4. Please note that we will be challenging the issuing of the proceedings under Part 8 Procedure as we do not deem this procedure suitable and proceedings should have been issued under Part 7. –  Noted.

1. I confirm your client has not disputed any of the facts and in your 6th paragraph below confirm your issue is you do not understand what I am claiming.

2. The facts were established with the pre action protocol with David Roberts and myself under his own freewill with no reservations as to the protocol being used.

3.No other responses were received from the other respondents’.

4. Hence the claim was issued under part 8 as the facts were not in dispute.

5. You have absolutely no substantiation for your statement and hence appears vexatious – please forward your reasoning for my consideration.

5. Additionally I draw your attention to Senior Courts Act 1981, 49

“Concurrent administration of law and equity.

(1)

Subject to the provisions of this or any other Act, every court exercising jurisdiction in England or Wales in any civil cause or matter shall continue to administer law and equity on the basis that, wherever there is any conflict or variance between the rules of equity and the rules of the common law with reference to the same matter, the rules of equity shall prevail.”,

and should you challenge the issue of proceeding upon such a technicality to delay, that will be acting with unclean hands and I would consider the such actions vexatious and notice you that you will be personally liable for such actions.

5. Furthermore, we do not consider that the Pre-action Protocol for Professional Negligence has been followed prior to proceedings issuing and we will be bringing this to the attention of the Court. We consider you should explain why you issued proceedings without following the Protocol. We are sending you a link of the Protocol attached for your information ( https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/protocol/prot_neg ). – Noted. 

    1. David Roberts responded to the Pre Court action Notice procedure I used by his own freewill and without objection, being that as describe in the first notice, and the replies and attempts to settle privately are annexed in the claim.

    2. David Roberts stated he is unable to help me further to try settle my claim.

    3. David Roberts, being a Solicitor should know better and did not point out any other Pre Court Actions, nor Protocols so why on earth would you expect any non professional to even be aware of this as clearly not even professionally trained and experienced solicitors do not even know this!

I suggest you reconsider your position and again I draw your attention to Senior Courts Act 1981, 49

“Concurrent administration of law and equity.

(1)

Subject to the provisions of this or any other Act, every court exercising jurisdiction in England or Wales in any civil cause or matter shall continue to administer law and equity on the basis that, wherever there is any conflict or variance between the rules of equity and the rules of the common law with reference to the same matter, the rules of equity shall prevail.”,

and should you continue to pursue upon such a technicality to delay that will be acting with unclean hands and I would consider the such actions unconscionable and notice you that you will be personally liable for such actions.

6. Finally, we do not consider that the claim has been adequately or properly pleaded such that we are unable to address the claims made by you as it is unclear as to what claims are being made against Wirral Solicitor Ltd. – Noted.

The claim is simple – the defendants removed trust property in breach of the Legal Charges, SDD and other obligations as detailed.

The claim is a point by point statement of truth  showing the terms of the agreement and Legal Charges and documents, and the individual actions or breaches referenced to the defendants.

In regards your client his actions were in personam whilst acting in his various capacities for Wirral Solicitors, Pinnacle Student Buyers (Leeds) Limited  and Pinnacle Student Developments (Leeds) Limited amongst others.

Depending upon which hat he was wearing at what time would determine where he was acting in the capacity of Wirral Solicitors which is assumed where the address is that of  Wirral Solicitors being alongside the signatures.

Beyond this you will have to ask David Roberts, your client if you require further clarification as to what hat he was wearing.

As a result of his actions (in various capacities) he  has removed the possibility for the legal charges to  automatically being triggered following any breach of the Trustees obligations, which was the redress in my agreement.

Depending upon the intent and involvement your client in his various capacities and of the other defendants it certainly appears there was ill intent as your client confirmed the legal charges were removed as a condition of the sale in the pre action protocol both he and I followed without objection and by our freewill.

7.  I will not re-issue and reserve this claim under another procedure until 4 and 5 above are addressed.

8.  Noted.

Equity is about substance and not procedure and I again draw your attention to Senior Courts Act 1981, 49

“Concurrent administration of law and equity.

(1)

Subject to the provisions of this or any other Act, every court exercising jurisdiction in England or Wales in any civil cause or matter shall continue to administer law and equity on the basis that, wherever there is any conflict or variance between the rules of equity and the rules of the common law with reference to the same matter, the rules of equity shall prevail.,

 and should you continue to pursue any technicality to delay that will be acting with unclean hands and I would consider the such actions unconscionable and notice you that you will be personally liable for such actions. This action is in Equity and not in Law and I am sure there is no need to remind you Equity looks at substance and not procedure.

9. Can you confirm whether you have served proceedings on the other Defendant’s named? It may help if a common approach is taken and we ask you for any contact details you may have with the other parties solicitors.

Yes the claim has been issued against all defendants.

The only contact details I have are those listed.

David Roberts most likely has the phone numbers of the majority of the defendants as he has been directly involved with most of them in his various capacities.

I certainly agree it would be a good idea as you suggest where the defendants between themselves sort this matter, failing which the court must decide who is liable for how much to ensure the obligations of the agreement are fulfilled. That is not for me to judge.

Regards,

Marc

Today’s problems are the result of yesterday’s thinking – Be the change you want to see!
On Thursday, 29 March 2018, 00:51:07 GMT+7, Nicola Hennessy <hennessy@caytonslaw.com> wrote:
THEIR EMAIL WAS SENT PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL, HOWEVER THERE IS NOTHING PRIVATE IN IT AS IT IS INCLUDED IN THE PUBLIC DOCUMENT OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SERVICE.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.