UKIP-vs-EUkip

UKIP-vs-EUkip
CLICK THE PIC for More on UKIP

Thursday 25 March 2010

#920* -> Mark CROUCHER vs. Greg Lance-Watkins NOTE of JUDGEMENT

#920* -> Mark CROUCHER vs. Greg Lance-Watkins NOTE of JUDGEMENT

Clean EUkip up NOW & make UKIP electable!

The corruption of some of EUkip’s leadership, their anti UKIP claque & the NEC is what gives the remaining 10% a bad name!

Mark CROUCHER vs. Greg Lance-Watkins NOTE of JUDGEMENT
Against Mark CROUCHER at CARDIFF COURT 18-Mar-2010!


Hi,

as promised here is the 'Note of Judgement' received from my solicitor today which supplements and clarifies my earlier postings on the matter at #912* & also #913*




Note of Judgment

His Honour Judge W Gaskell stated that this was an application by the defendant to strike out the claim.  He stated that today was the trial date and that the claimant was not in attendance. 

The first question which the Judge had to address was whether he could be confident that the claimant was aware of the hearing date.

He stated that the matter had previously been listed for trial on 27th January 2010.  This had been vacated and directions were given, including a new trial window.  Notice was given on 15th February 2010 stating that the trial had been listed on 18th March 2010.

The Judge had also heard that the defendant’s solicitor had spoken to the claimant the previous Friday and mention was made of today's hearing date during the call.  The Judge stated that an email had also been sent to the claimant setting out the various matters which needed to be resolved prior to the trial.

That email was in the bundle at page 139 and carried the date 15th March 2010.

The Judge had also heard evidence that the claimant was currently active on the internet and clearly there was an overwhelming likelihood that he had access to his emails.

The Judge then set out the background to the claim.  He stated that the claimant alleged that monies were due to him in respect of the use of 3 photographs used by the defendant on his internet blog.

The 3 photos were of head and shoulders of UKIP members (IJ later corrected the fact that one of the photos was a full body photograph of Nigel Ferrage).

The first issue was whether the claimant was the owner of the copyright and the photographs.  The Judge noted that Mr Croucher would have to overcome the fact that it seemed that the photographs had been taken by him in his capacity as an employee or at least as an agent employed by UKIP.

The Judge then turned to the issue of quantum.  If the claimant managed to overcome the issue of appropriate ownership the issue of quantum arises.  The Judge noted that the claimant claims £8,000.  On the material provided to the Judge, and he noted that he had not heard evidence from the claimant, he stated that it appeared to be grossly excessive. 

The Judge referred to the freelance fee guides and specifically to the online prices. 

The Judge noted that newspapers charge £625 for one year's use and that business use was £850 for one year. 

However, he noted that the use in question was by a not for profit website and stated that he was entitled on the basis of the material before him to conclude that it was highly unlikely that the claimant would achieve anything near that which he claimed.  However, the Judge noted that those issues could be put to one side for the moment.

The Judge stated that the fact was that the claimant had failed to file a pre trial checklist and the filing fee.  He had also failed to pay the hearing fee.  In accordance with the previous order made on 24th February 2010, the claim should be struck out due to this. 

The claimant had now failed to attend Court also.

The Judge stated that he was wholly satisfied that the claimant was aware of proceedings and had failed to take necessary steps in proceedings.  He had also failed to attend Court.  Had he attended Court and paid the money the Court would have heard the claimant's claim.

The Judge stated that taking in to consideration the claimant's breach of procedural requirements and his failure to attend Court and the difficulties he faced in relation to proving liability and quantum, it seemed appropriate to strike out the claim.  The Judge therefore struck out the claim.

Having heard submissions by the defendant’s counsel on costs, the Judge ordered the claimant to pay the defendant's costs assessed at £8,448.50 within 28 days.

Rhodri Jones (Solicitor),
Messrs. Hugh James Solicitors,
Cardiff.

To View Further Details On This Issue:

#912* > CARDIFF COUNTY COURT - 18-March-2010  

#913* - re Mark CROUCHER, UKIP, Cardiff County Court Verdict - My thanks. 


TO LEAVE THE EU

What is the exit and survival plan for these United Kingdoms to maximise on the many benefits of leaving The EU. It is the DUTY of our Politicians and Snivil Cervants to ensure the continuity, liberty and right to self determination of our peoples - they have a DUTY to protect against crime and secure both our food and our border.

NONE of these DUTIES has a single British politician upheld for 40 years. They have drawn their incomes fraudulently and dishonesty.


Politicians are failing to tell the truth, but so are almost all wanabe Politicians, the MSM and Snivil Cervants.

The fact is that even if EVERY British MEP wanted change in The EU it would achieve NOTHING.
Every single British Politician, of EVERY Party, elected since before we joined the EUropean Common Market, has promised to change The EU's CAP - In 40 Years they have achieved absolutely NOTHING!

To try to put a value on OUR Freedom is as futile as floccipaucinihilipilification and as odious as the metissage of our societies, as we rummage in the ashes of our ancestors dreams, sacrifices and achievements, the flotsam of our hopes and the jetsam of our lives, consider the Country and Anglosphere which we thus leave our children and the future, with shame!

Regards,
Greg L-W.
01291 – 62 65 62

PLEASE POST THIS TAG AS FOLLOWS:ON YOUR eMAILS & BLOGS, FORUM POSTINGS & MAILINGS - GET THE MESSAGE TO THE PEOPLE IT IS OUR BEST HOPE AS WHOEVER IS APPOINTED WILL MAKE NO DIFFERENCE AS PROVED!

I SUGGEST – since there is clearly no political party of repute, advocating or campaigning for withdrawal of these United Kingdoms from the EU and restoration of our independent sovereign, democracy, with Justice & the right to self determination in a free country.

Deny the self seeking & meaningless wanabe MEPs the Mythical Mandate for which they clamour. Diktat is imposed from The EU but Law should be made at Westminster, for our Country & our Peoples.






to


Reclaim YOUR Future
&
GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK





Write Upon Your Ballot Paper at EVERY election:


IF You Have No INDEPENDENT Leave-the-EU Alliance Candidate


LEAVE THE EU
to Reclaim YOUR Future
&
GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK

No comments:

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...