Help Needed for Court Case. Claimant ignoring Directions and Witness Statement needed by Friday

[DonkeyB]

Elsa, I remain gelded. Not sure if it’s a reversible operation.

[Desperate Daniella]

Hi BonkeyB,

 

I didn't know about a Notice to Admit Facts, and have just looked it up. But she is a liar, and I don't think she'd admit anything. What can you do if someone refuses to admit the facts? I wish I'd known about it last year because I would have sent her solicitor one to start with instead of sending him all the letters!

 

DD

[DonkeyB]

The point is though that they are OBLIGED to respond, as it’s effectively a court document. It puts a lot of pressure on. It will also narrow the issues – whatever is raised in the Notice will not be used in court as it is admitted, so you have to use it carefully. Well used, it can knock them dead.

[Desperate Daniella]

Thank you. I'll look at that option if they decide to go forward. At the moment it's adjourned and I'm hoping her solicitor makes her see sense and actually makes her understand that she won't be able to get away with all her ludicrous statements under cross-examination in front of a judge. Any normal person would realize that they can't say 'A' is true in one document and then that 'B' is true in another document when one totally contradicts the other. I just don't understand why her solicitor isn't making her see this.

[DonkeyB]

You could put all these contradictions together in a ‘without prejudice save as to costs’ letter and send it to them with an invitation to give up and settle for X amount. To do so would look rather good if it goes to court and you win, as the judge would be allowed to see the letter then.

[Desperate Daniella]

Thank you. I might do that.

 

I'm waiting on a response to my last letter, so will wait and see what they say. The reason why I hadn't mentioned the main whammy contradiction to them is because if it does go to Court then it will give her time to think up some explanation if she has an advance warning, rather than have it sprung on her by Counsel where she has no opportunity to ask her solicitor what to do.

 

There's another issue - a figure - where she might just get away with saying it's a typo but that again will demonstrate how careless and unconcerned she is about the accuracy of statements which she has said are true.

[Undercover-Elsa]

Anyone with any sense would have dropped this case by now. Just goes to show what a spiteful creature she is.

 

I'm OK thanks DD. All quiet at the moment..although that in itself can be worrying!

 

DonkeyB..... ouch! I know a good plastic surgeon....

[The GodMother]

Hi DD glad your still around. Keep kick the stupid woman were it hurts she will learn eventually. I think u will find u have to apply to the courts to have a director removed from the company but dont quote me on it as it may not be the same with the company u was involved with

[elsinore]

Hi DD.

Were you formally appointed as a director of the company and does (did) your name appear in the register of directors?

If so, then Companies Act 2006, Part 10, Chapter 1 comes into play. Look at Appointment and Removal of Directors, paras 168 and 169.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/part/10/chapter/1

 

Els

[The GodMother]

I would assume u can back trace the registered director.

[DonkeyB]

If you were removed as a director the form will be available on line at companies house. It will show who signed it and when.

[The GodMother]

Wondeful info there DB and elsinore. I thought l had seen a form on the HMRC courts forms page but l cant find it so gonna have to wait and see.

[bazaar]

Just a little word of warning DD, make sure you dont give them any more heads up stuff, they either want to go court or not.

If you keep responding unnecessarily it gives them more to explain away. Less is more.

[The GodMother]

Bazzaar.

The Claimant is not responding to court directions or letters at all. DD has had to wait Months and months for items she should have had and dispite the courts ordering they hand them over the claimant still is not. As result the Claimant is then causing problems for the defendant

[Desperate Daniella]

Hi everyone,

 

I hope you all had a good weekend. I was at my mum's for a few days for Mother's Day so sorry for the delay in responding.

 

Yes, I was formally listed as a Director at Companies House. She removed me without notice, and without discussion and flatly refused to even speak to me. This breach has been pointed out to her solicitor and they just ignore it. I could report her to Companies House, but to be honest I can't see them bothering too much with it because it is her only company (even though she changed the name of it) and although it's technically still trading in actual fact she is doing nothing with it.

 

Bazaar, I'm only repeating in the correspondence at this stage things I have already mentioned to her solicitor and pointing out that there is one enormous lie in what she has said, without actually telling him what it is, obviously. I assume they know what it is, but they might not. The problem is that she is completely clueless about court procedure and unless I actually put in words of one syllable that she will be asked to explain herself under cross-examination, and asked how she can explain that she has signed statements of truth which contradict each other in many cases, I don't think she'll be put off going to Court. I mean, she does know she is lying - and her solicitor must know she is lying too, because I've provided evidence to show she is lying. They ignore the evidence too.

 

She did actually supply all the information eventually, GM, but only after months of correspondence which racked up the costs. She had no legal right to refuse to supply it. Of course, she may have been lying to her own solicitor all along, because there are untruthful statements in his letters to me, and I assume they are based on what she was telling him until she actually had to produce the papers which show what a conniving, untruthful b**** she was while I was still a Director of the company.

[Desperate Daniella]

Sorry, I posted by mistake without finishing.

 

I don't think she really does want to go to Court, she wants the money without actually having to prove her case.

 

In Summer the correspondence dragged on and on, and I applied to the court to adjourn the hearing then because I said I could not complete my witness statement because they were refusing to supply documents. Then her solicitor went on holiday and the person acting for him said he'd deal with matters on his return which was literally going to be about a week before the trial date, so there was no time for skeleton arguments, etc. So we went on for more months of correspondence about the documents, then we were due to go to trial, and there was the mediation meeting which was a complete waste of time because she demanded so much money and wouldn't negotiate at all, so we were due to go to trial a week later and three days beforehand her solicitor phoned and said he thought it would be better to settle, and would I agree to an adjournment. I then expected some reasonable offer, but again she comes back demanding all her enormous costs, and hasn't changed her position from the mediation meeting.

 

With the correspondence I'm not going into too much detail because if it goes to court I don't want her having rehearsed answers where she can explain things away, as you say, but I do want her to see that she'll be torn apart if she actually does go into the witness box. She has told lies. Maybe she doesn't think that a statement of truth counts? Anyway, I can't see any way in which she'll be able to explain away the 'big' lie, and of course that is on top of all the other untruths and inaccuracies we can also prove.

 

Will update when I hear further.

 

Love,

 

DDxx

[bazaar]

without going over the whole thread, doesnt she owe you money?

[Desperate Daniella]

Yes she does, but she says she doesn't. I worked because I thought I was an equal shareholder of the company because she lied and told me I was. I had asked her about papers to sign and she said that as she had set up the company online there was nothing to sign. I believed her. I was naive. I thought she was a friend and trusted her. Emails from her refer to "our" company. She deliberately misled me.

 

When she threw me out, very little money had been received by clients. She chucked me out before anticipated funds came in, then told more lies to cover this up.

 

The arrangement was that all profits would be shared between us - as they would between shareholders. But I wasn't a shareholder as I had been led to believe and I am therefore entitled to be paid for the work I did for "her" company for more than a year.

 

Basically she wants it both ways: I was not a shareholder so she could throw me out without notice and say it was always her company (which I subsequently found it was), but then she insists I should be treated as a shareholder and only be entitled to share the profit of the company while I was a Director, and not be paid for all the work I did under a mistake of fact (that I was an equal shareholder).

 

In other words, she benefited from everything I did but doesn't see why she should pay for it. The mediator said he could see I'd done all the work from the evidence, and her solicitor knows I did too, with statements confirming this from third parties, but she still doesn't think she should pay me.

[DonkeyB]

Have you downloaded all the documents from Companies House, such as Articles, etc, which will show share capital etc?

[Desperate Daniella]

Yes, and I had no shares.

[bazaar]

DD have you got the statement from the mediator?? Thats a perfect bit of ass shoving equipment if you get my drift. IE, you were not a share holder, you did most of the work. so you want to be paid for it, it seems to me that they dont want to get into a court room, because all this is stacked against her and her shyster lawyer. Her lawyer will drag this out, because hes on a good earner.

I take it, youve still got council/ lawyer. Just sit it out until you get your court date

[Desperate Daniella]

Hi bazaar,

 

I didn't get a written statement from the mediator. Do they usually give one? I said (in our private room) that I had done all the work, and he said, "I can see you did all the work." (He'd read the evidence properly.)

 

As it happens, if they had gone to Court at the end of last year I could not have paid Counsel, and I think they were depending on that. However, things have improved a little and I could now pay him (with some help from a friend who just cannot believe this). I have made it very, very clear in my letters to her solicitor that she will not be facing me but will be facing Counsel in cross-examination. She does not like confrontation - remember she flatly refused to meet me or speak to me when she chucked me out - and if they google Counsel they'll see he is very experienced, and in any case she saw him at the mediation and he was very cool and appeared very tough at the first part where we were all together in the room with the mediator.

 

The problem is that she's been throwing money at this like a crazy person, because she could because she is rich. Maybe she just doesn't get that you can't say totally different things are all true in various witness statements and expect a judge not to pick up on them. Maybe, despite the actual hard evidence, she has convinced herself that she is in the right. What I don't understand (even taking into consideration how much she has paid him) is that her lawyer doesn't even seem to have noticed all the contradictions in her various witness statements. A barrister friend of mine says that solicitors often don't read all the papers sent to them, and it's only when it gets to Counsel that he/she will pick up on the anomolies, but as I've pointed out most (but not all!!) of her contradictory statements in correspondence he has really no excuse for not pointing out to her that her later statements contradict the earlier ones. (I'm obviously pleased they do because it all helps to discredit her.)

[elsinore]

Hi DD,

 

Presumably there was a hearing scheduled for last November but you agreed to’adjourn’ to negotiate.

Did the court order a stay as a result of a request for an ‘adjournment’?

If so, was it indefinite or time specific?

Els

[Desperate Daniella]

Hi Els,

 

Yes, they did, and it was indefinite.

 

DDx

[bazaar]

well, as long as your ducks are all in a row, you'll just have to wait it out.