appeal on grounds that expert witness not fit
chrissyboy
I am starting a new thread as the old one was getting a bit confusing.
I got some very good advice from various people on this thread:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/uk.legal/browse_frm/thread/3d1840b48c0d3bd1
This is the scenario:
I recently lost a court case in which I defended myself. (The case
involves damage to the paintwork of a motor vehicle) The Claimant's
witness was obviously (to me at any rate) a "hired gun". He said in
his report some things which were blatantly untrue and the judge
admitted in his judgment that they were untrue. Yet he still preferred
the Claimant's expert's testimony over mine. (I will not speculate on
why he prefferred what I consider to be evidence which was obviously
tainted. No-one in the field in question would have any doubt
whatsover that the Claimant's expert witness evidence was rubbish.
I foolishly summonsed as a witness, the estimator from the local body
shop where the Claimant had gone (I wrote a letter saying that she
should take the vehicle to a bodyshop and have it put back to new). I
had to threaten this witness with a summons to get him to sign a
witness statement because he made plain to me that he did not want to
get involved. Anyway I think I broke the first rule which is I
believe: "make sure you know exactly what your witnesses are going to
say". Anyway he exacted his revenge on me for dragging him into court
by denying what the evidence of his original estimate said. Again,
anyone in the Car Body Repair trade would know that what he said in
Court was nonsense.
Lastly, my own witness was just a local man and had no experience as an
expert witness. I came to the realisation that he was a bit flakey
during my dealings with him but in spite of this he did well in court.
He spoke well and authoratively and what he said made my case except
for one last detail where, when questioned by the judge appeared to go
along with what the estimator said. I believe the Judge intimidated
him and he said what the judge wanted to hear. Again, anyone in the
Car Body Repair trade would know that this last detail was rubbish.
btw, I will be posting up all the documents in the trial bundle, the
transcript and the judgment on a website soon so you will soon be able
get a better picture. (When posting up the documents I will delete
anything which could identify the participants except myself and I will
be very careful not to post up anything which could be construed as
actionable.)
My time left to appeal has just about run out but I have made an
application for an extension of time on the ground that I need to
consult counsel and this will take time given that having defended
myself they will be coming to the case unprepared and also that the
Christmas holidays will slow this consultation process down
considerably.
QUESTION ONE:
>From the kind advice given to me so far on here it seems a promising
avenue would be to get some impeccable authority to say that all three
witnesses said things which were not true and are therefore not fit
and/or able.
Am I allowed only one "expert" to do this or could I get several
"impeccable authorities"? I guess that these authorities are going to
have be really good. How good do they have to be? Do they have to be
really exceptionally good. (As in for instance a statement from
Thatcham Motor Industry Repair Research Centre if I can get one - this
will be tricky but I think I might know how to swing it). If I can't
get a statement from Thatcham, will a really good expert's evidence
do?
QUESTION TWO:
As of this moment my extension of leave to appeal hearing is set for
15 minutes and the bastards are going to drag me 200 miles there and
back again. They have not yet set a date. (Just phoned the court)
This judge will stitch me up if he can. I expect him to say no to my
request for time to appeal which means that my only hope is that I have
time to get my appeal ready before the application hearing. (The fact
that they have not set a date suggests to me that he is looking far a
date as early as possible and could not find an early slot. I think he
will be hoping that an earlier slot becomes available so he can get me
in that before I have had time to get my act together.) I will be
aiming to cobble an appeal together as best I can therefore before the
hearing.
Here is my question: If at the hearing he says, " no extension of time
and your appeal time has run out therefore you cannot lodge an appeal."
What do I do then? I will have the cobbled together appeal with me.
(Obviously if he DOES give me an extension I can polish it up a bit)
Cheers Chris
The Todal
"chrissyboy" <ch...@before-n-after.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1104322356.2...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Hi,
>
> I am starting a new thread as the old one was getting a bit confusing.
> I got some very good advice from various people on this thread:
>
>
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/uk.legal/browse_frm/thread/3d1840b48c0d3bd1
>
> This is the scenario:
>
> I recently lost a court case in which I defended myself.
snip
>
> btw, I will be posting up all the documents in the trial bundle, the
> transcript and the judgment on a website soon so you will soon be able
> get a better picture. (When posting up the documents I will delete
> anything which could identify the participants except myself and I will
> be very careful not to post up anything which could be construed as
> actionable.)
The most important document would be a transcript of the judge's judgment
from which it will be apparent precisely what weight he gave to the expert
testimony. No need to delete any details from that, unless you want to.
chrissyboy
OK. Here you go. Names removed to protect the guilty.
Mr. ......of counsel for the Claimant, the Defendant in person.
The Claimant .......... is seek damages from the Defendant for
negligent workmanship carried out by him on her Land Rover.
In January 2003 she purchased a Land Rover Defender 110 CSW. It was
bran new and the cost of purchase on the road was just below £25.000.
She is ........... and the vehicle was purchased not in association
with her work but rather with regard to her hobbies. She ............
this was a vehicle very suitable for all weathers and all terrains.
She considered the purchase a significant investment and wanted to keep
it in pristine condition as was feasible. Before she purchased the
Land Rover she noticed in a magazine an advertisement by the Defendant.
He operated a business applying rust proofing products to vehicles
such as a Land Rover and offering a complete anti-corrosive and non
stick treatment for application to vehicles such as that owned by the
Claimant. The brand name for the coating was "Kleentect". She
telephoned the Defendant and negotiated a price for this treatment to
her vehicle. The cost was agreed at £1.500 plus VAT. The deposit of
£200 was paid on 23 January 2003 and the work was undertaken. Payment
was made by bankers draft. The whole purpose of the coating treatment
was to prevent rust damage from underneath the vehicle. There was no
complaint by Mrs. Aubrey as to the treatment itself but after
completion of the work she noticed that over the paint work of the
vehicle there was left a film of spray from the treatment. This was
very fine and was basically dark in colour.
The Claimant contacted the Defendant about this and he agreed to travel
up from Newbury where his business was situated to her home in
............. to see if he could remedy the problem. He spent all day
working on the removal of the over spray in the application of polish.
Unfortunately due to the use of abrasive material by the Defendant the
remedial work caused significant problems to the paint work on the
vehicle. She claims the cost of re-spraying the paint work of all the
vehicle and the diminution in value as a result of such remedial work.
The Defendant accepts that the paint work has been affected but the
Land Rover would be returned to its original condition by mechanical
polishing.
1.
On the issue of liability therefore there is an acceptance by the
Defendant of responsibility for the over spray and this is supported by
the evidence of both the Claimant, his expert and that of the
Claimant. The Claimant's expert Mr........ found on his inspection
of the vehicle on 2 May 2003, found that the roof and bonnet panel had
been flatted and polished by the Defendant utilising wet and dry paper.
In a number of areas the lack of finish had been burn through leaving
areas of dullness to the paint. It was most prominent on the offside
arch spats. There were "swirl" marks in the paint work from the
rubbing and polishing that had taken place. The bonnet had a
"patch" effect. There were polished deposits in the head lamp
cowls, front grille and door handles being "black" plastic areas.
Finally he was of the opinion the vehicle had been incorrectly masked
prior to the protection to the underside of the vehicle being applied
which resulted in the over spray.
Mr. ........t the Defendant's expert examined the Land Rover on 23
November 2003. He found the vehicle had recently been washed which had
enhanced the flatting marks on the vehicle. They were located on the
roof, bonnet, offside and near-side front wings. Further there was
evidence of over spray to the sunroof, to the surround of the
framework of windscreen, also over spray on the front grille on the
near-side sill cover.
The cumulative effect of the Claimant's assertion that the paint work
and accessories had been affected on the vehicle and both experts
evidence supporting is that there can be no doubt that the Claimant has
made out her case on liability uder the pleaded implied terms of the
contract that in carrying out the works the Defendant would exercise a
reasonable standard of care and skill to the expected of a competent
vehicle repairer and applicator of the Kleentect process and Section 13
of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1992. It was not the Kleentect
process that was the cause of the problem but the failure to mask the
vehicle competently before applying the treatment and subsequently
attempting to rectify the matter by use of wet and dry paper.
The real issue in this case is causation and the appropriate measures
of damages for the Claimant to receive for breach of the implied and
statutory terms of the contract.
Firstly I will deal with the issue raised by the Defendant that the
Claimant had waxed the vehicle when she had got it home after the
treatment and this would have caused and/or contributed to its present
condition. This could be described as an intervening event the law on
which is dealt with in paragraph 26-037 page 1443 in "Chitty on
Contracts" volume 1 29th edition. Where it says:
"An intervening event which could reasonably be expected will not
excuse the Defendant for loss caused by the combined operation of the
Defendant's breach of contract and the intervening event".
On payment of the deposity by the Claimant to the Defendant she was
supplied with certain documentation relating to Kleentect. This
document is at pages A76 and A77 of the trial bundle and at the top of
the second page under the heading "cleaning your car" it syas
"your car will be thoroughly cleaned before being handed back to you.
You will get some waxoyl dripping out of the doors, boot lid etc for
about 3 days. I will give you some very absorben rage to wipe this off
with. If you should find any traces of waxoyl on the car that I have
missed it comes off easily with white spirit. Fine spray on body work
comes off very easily with Mer or Autogym or any good car wax."
The Claimant contends that she did wax the car after returning home
after finding that it was causing problems to the paint work having
only done an area round the wheel arch she stopped. The Defendant has
asserted that in fact she waxed the whole of the car. I prefer the
Claimant's evidence on this point and I am certain that if she found
it was causing problems to her paint work she would cease waxing
immediately. Further she cannot be criticised in waxing the vehicle in
view of the written instructions she received from the
2.
Defendant himself. It follows that the intervening event namely the
waxing of the vehicle was an action reasonably to be expected and
cannot affect in any way her claim for damages.
The Defendant called 2 witnesses whose evidence I will deal with at
this juncture. Firstly there was he receptionist and she dealt with
matters leading up to the making of the contract with the Claimant and
how the contract was carried out generally relating to the treatment
work. This evidence doesn't assist me. The work was carried out and
the contract completed the issue is whether there was a breach of
contract and if so the damages that should be awarded. Secondly there
was a photographer who took photographs of the Land Rover and he told
the court that when he sawk the vehicle it looked "as good as new".
Again this evidence doesn't assist me. When I first saw the vehicle
standing back 2 or 3 yards you would not necessarily see the problems
complained of by the Claimant until you are much closer to the vehicle
and this gentleman is not an expert witness in this case.
In the light of the evidence to which I have referred and especially
the fact that its admitted that there was over spray the issue of
liability is made out against the Defendant.
The real issue in this case is what damages flow from the breach. The
Defendant contends that at the most the areas complained of on the Land
Rover need only be mechanically polished for it would return the
vehicle to its pre breach of contract condition. The Claimant
maintains that the vehicle requires a complete re-spray. The
definitive evidence in relation to this issue is provided by the 2
experts Mr. ..... for the Claimant and Mr. ....... for the Defendant
and by personal inspection of the vehicle.
Mr. ...... is an independent claims assessor forensic and consulting
engineer. He's had experience in the motor industry since 1975 when
he stared as an apprentice mechanic. On his examination of the Land
Rover on 2 May 2003 he found the following:
1. The horizontal panel i.e the roof and bonnet panel had been flatted
and polished by the Defendant utilising wet and dry paper. He failed
in a number of areas what the lack of finish has been burnt through
leaving areas of dullness to the paint. This was most prominent on the
offside arch spats.
2. There were "swirl" marks in the paint work from the rubbing and
polishing that had taken place.
3. The bonnet had a "patch" effect.
4. There were polish deposits in the head lamp cowls, front grilled
and door handles being "black" plastic areas.
5. It is apparent that vehicle had been incorrectly masked prior to the
protection to the underside of the vehicle being applied. He was quite
firm in his view that there was no althernative but for the vehicle to
be completely repainted. On the issue of diminution in value and as a
result of the repainting he would put that in the region of 10% of the
market value of the vehicle at the point of the repair completion.
In his letter to the Claimant appearing at page F7 of the trial bundle
he said that it was his considered view that any further polishing of
the motor vehicle would not rectify the problem she was experiencing,
the quantity of flatting and attempts at polishing the vehicle had
caused discolouring of the paint of the vehicle and there was no
althernative but for the vehicle to be repainted.
In his letter to the Claimant's solicitor dated 21 December 2003 he
said that when he initially examined the vehicle he did consider the
possibility of the vehicle being polished but attempts had already been
made to this without success. The vehicle
3.
was now somewhat patchy in its appearance and the only way that it
could be repaired to an acceptable standard and placed back into its
former condition prior to the deposits being allowed to land upon the
paint work for the vehicle to be completely repainted. This was the
only method of long term repair which was available to the vehicle and
the only method of repair that he would recommend. He pointed out that
he'd been an insurance assessor consulting engineer since 1984-1985
whereupon the majority of his work evolved around body repairs whether
it be body structure or paint repairs to the vehicles.
In his letter dated January 2004 to the Claimant's solicitors he
says "I found on a number of areas that the lack of finish had been
burnt through leaving areas of dullness to the paint".
In his letter dated 20 February 2004 to the Claimant's solicitors he
refers to Mr. ....... evident that parts of the Land Rover were damaged
paint and could be dealt with by a number of different procedures. Mr.
..... comment on this was that this would lead to further problems
with colour match as in his original report following inspection of the
vehicle when he was of the same opinion as the garage which was
prepared to carry the respraying (sic) ...... of ........ who were
Land Rover BMW dealers who considered the the vehicle required full
exterior repaint. It is quite apparent from the advertisement of the
treatment process that it was a hard wearing substance which had
contaminated the vehicle and obvious difficulty had been experienced in
the attempts at removing it. In his feeling the only method of
repairing is satisfactorily for the long term good of the vehicle and
to bring it back into its former condition would be for vehicle to be
repainted.
In his letter to the Claimant's solicitors dated 27 February 2004 he
states that the subsequent attempts to resolve the matter of removing
the substance and the exterior paint work of the vehicle had caused
further damage to the paint work of the vehicle. All suggested
attempts that had been raised to rectify the matter are dictated more
on the basis of keeping costs down rather than dealing with the matter
correctly. He again was firmly of the view that the paint work had
been damaged to such a degree that the vehicle warranted a repaint. It
would be the only matter of repair which could guarantee to return the
vehicle into anything like its former condition in the long term. On
the issue of repolishing if the vehicle only needed repolishing the
question of diminution would not arise. However areas of the vehicle
did require painting would certainly lead to a diminution of value.
The diminution of value was irrespective of repair quality it is the
concern of a purchaser who would be aware that the motor vehicle had
been subject to repairs, 10% of the market value would not be
unrealistic in this respect.
In his letter to the Claimant's solictors dated 8 March 2004 he
referred to the fact that the Defendant wished to carry on along the
lines by which he'd already failed prior to his inspection of the
vehicle to remedy the situation. This was to remove the over spray
from the vehicle using Xylene Cleaner, Cellulose Thinners and
polishing the vehicle to remove the deposited substance on the vehicles
exterior. If the removal was so easy he questioned as to why the
Defendant did not undertake this method when he made what he was
advised was the extent at the attempts at removal prior to his
inspection and report. When he examined the vehicle certainly the
paint work had not been brought back into his former condition (sic)and
these prolonged and repeated attempts at removing the substance on
paint work were certainly not benefiting the motor vehicle by causing
further damage to the paint. Therefore he is still of the view when he
initially inspected the vehicle that the only true method of repairing
it was bringing it back into its former condition by way of repainting.
He repeated what he said before that the Defendant's repeated
suggestions at rectifying the problem appeared to be method by
minimising costs only with no benefit of a lasting resolution. In his
letter of 12 March 2004 to the Claimant's soliticitors he said "to
be repaired correctly it would be necessary for the vehicle to be
repained as I have already recommended. Any purchaser of the vehicle
having required repairs of this magnitude would obviously be concerned
and would elect to purchase a vehicle that had suffered no repair in
preference to the repaired vehicle unless a discount was offered".
The Defendant's
4.
expert Mr. ........ was the owner of ......r Body Repairs based in
Glossop, Derbyshire. He was an experienced panel beater/sprayer
having been in the business for a total of 20 years. He was a
qualified estimator. He inspected the Land Rover on 23 November 2003.
He noticed that it had recently been washed which enhaned the flatting
marks quite clearly. These were located on the roof, bonnet, offside
and near side doors, rear quarter panels, offside and near side rear
doors offside and near side front wings. There was also evidence of
overspray to the sunroof, to the surround of framework of windscreen,
and in the front grille and on the near side sill cover. In his
opinion the only way to remedy the situation would be to carry out a
complete rebuff using a polishing machine which would erase the
flatting marks and recover the finish on the vehicle. However, should
this fail then panels would require repainting to manufacturers colour
and blending into adjacent panels for manufacturers colour and match.
He did not agree with Mr. ..... that there were signs of "burn
through". There would not be any diminution in value of the vehicle
after remedial work had been carried out.
At this point I would refer to a witness, Mr. ....., who was called
for the Defendant from ....... of ....... to whom I have referred to
already in this judgement. He gave the evidence for the re-spray. He
was the senior estimator at ...... In answering questions of the court
he took the view that the way to tackle remedial work was firstly to
polish the complete exterior of the vehicle by using an electric mop
and fine abrasives in order to remove any surface blemishes or fine
scratches but then to inspect the vehicle to decide whether or not a
re-spray would be necessary. If so a re-spray should take place but if
not the vehicle could be simply lacquered. Until the first step was
taken he could not give any definitive opinion as to whether a re-spray
or polish and lacquer would be the best method to bring the vehicle
back into the condition it was prior to the treatment work.
I visually inspected the Land Rover and I noticed that when one stood
back a few yards from it there did not appear anything really untoward.
However as one made a closer inspection it was quite clear that every
part of the paint work of the vehicle had been affected as described by
the experts say I did not find any "burn through" as defined to me
by the experts and the rear of the vehicle had not been affected.
When questioned in court as to the remedial work which would place the
vehicle back into the condition it was prior to the treatment. Mr.
......t took the view that mechanical polishing and lacquering would do
just that and it was unnecessary for a respray. Mr. ...... did not
take this view for in his opinion and experience it was quite possible
that in the future the lacquer would peel off.
I will refer to matters of law at this point.
In paragraph 1-101 page 62 of Chitty on Contracts volume 1, 29th
edition it says "the function of damages in contract is primarily to
put the injured parties as far as possible in the position in which he
or she would have been had the contract been performed".
In paragraph 32-003 on page 1030 of McGregor on Damages 17th edition it
states "in Darbishire -v- Warren it was said by Harman LJ that
"it has come to be settled that in general the measure of damage is
the costs of repairing the damaged article". Moreover if despite the
repairs the market value of the goods is less than before the Claimant
should be entitled to such diminution in value in addition to the costs
of repair. In Paytone -v- BrooksRoskill LJ said "there are many
cases........ where the costs of repairs is a prima facie method of
ascertaining the diminution in value. It is not, however, the only
method of ascertaining the loss. In a case where the evidence
justifies a finding there has been on top of the cost of repairs some
diminuation (sic) in market value. I can see reason (sic) why the
Plaintiff should be deprived of recovery under that head of damages
also".
On the issue of whether there should be a re-spray or a lacquer and
repolish I prefer Mr. ...... evidence. He has been firm and consistent
throughout his reports. This is the only course of action to take to
place the Claimant back into the position as far as the vehicle was
concerned before the breach of contract. On his evidence there is risk
of the lacquer flaking if the latter remedial action is taken. The
Claimant should not suffer this. It should not be a possible risk but
she is obliged to take, taking into account the law to which I have
referred namely placing her as best as possible back into the position
she would have been if (sic) vehicle paint work had not been affected.
Even on Mr. ...... evidence the Defendant's witness he was not able
to say whether a re-spray was necessary or not but clearly it might be
but did not discount it for he could not give a definitive opinion
until the vehicle had been polished to examine the damage in more
detail. This leaves open the risk that polishing and lacquer only may
not put the vehicle back into the condition it was prior to the
treatment. Finally Mr. ...... in his statement of evidence dated 18
March after 2004 after he had examined the vehicle said "in my
professional capacity as a panel beater and sprayer it is my opinion
that the only way to remedy the situation would be to carry out a
complete rebuff using a polishing machine which would erase the
flatting marks and recover the finish on the vehicle. However, should
this fail then panels would require repairing to manufacturers colour
and blending into adjacent panels for manufactuers colour and match.
(Judge's underlining) Despite his oral evidence that a polishing and
lacquering would be sufficient to place the vehicle back into its
previous condition this statement by him makes it clear that it may not
be sufficient if it failed and a re-spray would be necessary to recover
the costs of re-spray as opposed to the cost of polishing and
lacquering. (sic)
There is only one written estimate produced to the court from ...... of
....... dated 25 April 2003 which is in the sum of £2569.86 ex VAT.
Mr. ..... did give some oral estimates in court but as ...... are Land
Rover and BMW dealers it would be appropriate to take their estimate as
the guideline for damages. However, included in that estimate are a
number of attachments to the vehicle which have been affected very
slightly by white dottings. They are hardly visible without very close
inspection. I do not consider that the Defendant should face the cost
of replacing those items and any damage suffered by the Claimant in
this respect can be reflected in the diminution of value claim. I
therefore exclude those items which in value amount to £160.60. I
shall also exclude the estimate for valeting which in my view does not
flow from the breach of contract. This leaves a figure of £2,309.00.
As I said on my inspection of the vehicle I did not see any part of the
rear paint work being affected and this was conceded by both sides. I
see no reason why that should be res-sprayed it looks in good
condition, and I do not consider kthere should be any problems with
over matching with the re-spray. I propose to reduce the figure to
£2.390.00 by 20%. This brings the net figure to the sum of £1,847.30
VAT on this is £323.26 (sic) makes a final total of £2,170.46 which
I award the Claimant as damages.
It was put to the 2 experts and Mr. ....... on behalf of the Claimant
that there was bound to be a diminution in value if a re-spray takes
place. If that information was discovered or made known to a
prospective purchaser it would certainly affect the price. I have no
doubt that that is the case bearing in mind the law to which I have
referred the Claimant is entitle to an award under this head of claim.
Bearing in mind that this is a fairly new vehicle and that the work is
likely to be carried out very professionally by Land Rover dealers I
would restrict the diminution in valllue to 7% of the purchase price of
£25.000.00 which is a figure of £175.00. The base figure for
judgment in respect of both heads of claim is £3.920.46. It is my
view that no interest is payable on the repair cost aws the Claimant
has not yet expended this sum but it would run at the statutory rate of
8% in respect of the diminution of value claim from the date of breach.
As far as costs are concerned the Claimant has succeeded and beaten
the payment into court by the Defendant and in accordance with the
general rule she must be entitled to her costs of this case. The
amount recovered is less than the small claims jurisdiction f
£5.000.00 but the case was allocated to the fast track and contested
by the Defendant throughout. It would be appropriate to apply fast
track costs. However, I will allow 14 days from the date of receipt
of this judgment to submit submissions in writing to me on the issue of
interest and costs when I will make my final decision in respect of
these items and summarily assess the costs based on the statement
produced by the Claimant's counsel. In those submissions the
Defendant is entitled to raise any issues on the amount of costs shown
in that statement.
Andrew McGee
"The Todal" <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote in message
news:33fnshF...@individual.net...
Though it must be added that the attempt to undermnie a judgment by
complaining about the other side's evidence (as distinct fromt he weight
given to that evidence by the judge) does not look promising, especially
when no expert evidence was tendered in rebuttal.
Andrew McGee
chrissyboy
in the next couple of days.
In the meantime here are the most important (as I see it points)
relating to the expert's testimony.
1. The claimant took her vehicle to ..........of ........... .They
gave her an estimate for repolishing the paintwork for £150. I said
fine, go ahead, I will pay. She subsequently decided that she wanted
it repainted and went to a solicitor who sent me a claim for £5,500
for repainting and 10% diminution of value. I refused ......leading to
this court case.
2. The estimator from .............of ............... said in court
that while he gave an estimate for repolishing he could not be sure
until the vehicle was repolished whether it would need any further work
and it could then need laquering. Well this is rubbish. If the paint
on a vehicle is contaminated by overspray in this case a metallic
finish, the rectification would be either removal by some "flatting"
with extremely fine wet and dry and mechanical polishing OR
re-lacquering. The estimator made out that the polishing would be
some kind of exploratory process. This is complete cobblers. A
choice would be made - either re-polish or re-lacquer. It would make
absolutely no sense to polish and THEN lacquer. There would be
absolutely no point and nothing would be gained.
3. The Claimant's expert said there was "burn through". Burn through
means wearing through a paint layer by overzealous or clumsy use of
abrasives (either wet and dry or the polishing buff). No-one in the
body repair trade could mistake burn through. It leaves a distinctive
stain in the paint which cannot be covered up and the only
rectification would be repainting. This indicates to me at least that
this so called "expert" is either dishonest or not capable.
4. The Claimant's expert also claims that re-lacquering would not be
an option because it could flake off. Again this is cobblers. This
might happen with some under the arches bodge up operation but
certainly not the a BMW /Land Rover maind delear accredited body shop.
He also says that if a panel is repainted then the whole car has to be
re-sprayed. Again, this is nonsense. It might have been true 20
years ago - it certainly is not true now. He also says that
re-polishing is not an option because it will soon go dull again.
Once again this is nonense.
5. My expert when questioned by the judge went along with the
"polishing as part of an exploratory process" operation. You can see
that the judge has said "polishing and lacquering". This is nonsense.
One either polishes or lacquers. Not the two combined.
There are many other things to say. The judgment when read without
knowledge of the case could appear quite fair but just to give an
example. My expert has a very impressive cv. Unfortunately no details
of this appeared in the trial bundle. I intended to rectifiy this by
asking him about his cv while on the witness stand but the judge cut me
short and would not let me ask him about his cv. (It will be
interesting to see if the tape can be obtained in good condition for a
transcript). So in his judgment he has contrasted my expert who is
just a "paint sprayer" with the Claimant's expert who has "many years
experience as a loss adjustor" (or whatever - I can't be bothered to
look up the exact quotes). In fact the Claimant's expert admitted in
the stand that he was just a mechanic and he had no practical or
theoretical knowledge of bodywork except for pissing about with
spraying when he was a mechanic.
I will post up a full commentary as soon as poss.
Cheers Chris
chrissyboy
Andrew McGee wrote:
.
>
> Though it must be added that the attempt to undermnie a judgment by
> complaining about the other side's evidence (as distinct fromt he
weight
> given to that evidence by the judge) does not look promising,
especially
> when no expert evidence was tendered in rebuttal.
>
> Andrew McGee
Hi Andrew,
I'm not sure what you mean exactly. Plenty of expert evidence was
tendered in rebuttal. This will be evident when I post up the trial
bundle and transcript. As I said, I have not had time to do a full
commentary on the judgment yet.
A really qualified, honest expert is going to look at the evidence
offered and say its rubbish. For example the estimator gave an
estimate for repolishing. In court he said that re-polishing would
just be an exploratory first step. But it is fairly evident that this
is rubbish even to a non expert (and a judge). An estimator would not
make an estimate for a mechanical polish if he thought that further
work might be involved because if I gave the go ahead and then they
discovered that further work needed doing I would say, "right well
this further work that needs doing whatever it is - you must have
caused it with your polishing so you do it and you accept the cost".
If an estimator in a top body shop thought that anything else needed
doing he would have covered himself by mentioning it in the estimate.
Cheers Chris
chrissyboy
Please do not take the judgment at face value. My version of events
is completely different to the Claimant's. I believe I have provided
extremely good evidence that my version of events is true (for example
Claimant says she did not wax entire vehicle - I say not true) The
Claimant made one claim which is quite central to her case and which I
proved was false and which she admitted in the witness stand was false.
(The judge makes no mention of this in his judgment - why is that?) On
many other details I believe the evidence supports my version of events
and proves hers to be wrong. Yet the judge has taken her version of
events completely on board (the waxing of vehicle is an important point
as you will see when all the documents are posted up).
So when you read the judgment with my commentary (when I have time to
write it) you will get a completely different picture.
Cheers Chris
Steve Walker
> I recently lost a court case in which I defended myself. (The case
> involves damage to the paintwork of a motor vehicle) The
> Claimant's witness was obviously (to me at any rate) a "hired
> gun". He said in his report some things which were blatantly
> untrue and the judge admitted in his judgment that they were
> untrue. Yet he still preferred the Claimant's expert's testimony
> over mine.
Shit happens. Pass it to your insurers and move on, but next time maybe
hire a lawyer to run your defence.
There's no rational point in getting into conspiracy theories, freemasonry &
websites etc over a few thousand quid - this newsgroup is littered with
examples of people who have ruined their lives by becoming thus obsessed.
chrissyboy
Steve Walker wrote:
>
> There's no rational point in getting into conspiracy theories,
freemasonry &
> websites etc over a few thousand quid - this newsgroup is littered
with
> examples of people who have ruined their lives by becoming thus
obsessed.
This is very good advice. I don't want to become obsessed and as you
rightly point out that is a real danger.
Posting this up on a website will only cost me about £300 so I think
it is worth doing. It might help others. Re: getting into conspiracy
theories and freemasonry etc. - I certainly shall not let it ruin my
life. I have a pretty good picture of how the world works. It does
not make me particularly paranoid. I just know the score and try and
deal with the world on my terms. I think the trick is to just hold
on to your own integrity no matter what. That is why I have a little
one man business - I don't have to make any compromises.
I may have to bite the bullet and move on. I will have learnt some
valuable lessons but at great personal sacrifice.
However, I am not a quitter. I need to explore every possible option.
If I can appeal I want to do that. If I have to go to the high court
that will cost a lot of money. But I read on here that high court
judges are high quality judges. I honestly believe that anyone looking
honestly and impartially at the evidence will come to the right
decision. (you will soon be able to do that on my wesbsite) I know
what the facts are. Surely it can't be right that a court accepts that
white is black and black is white. I'm hoping you will bear with me
and help me explore the options. Your advice is greatly appreciated.
I know I will seem ignorant and stupid about the law but I think
tenacity should not be underated. If you can, please help me find
grounds to appeal.
"Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence. Talen will
not; education will not. Persistance and determination alone are
omnipotent.
Calvin Coolidge"
Raster Ferian
> btw,
>
> Please do not take the judgment at face value. My version of events
> is completely different to the Claimant's. I believe I have provided
> extremely good evidence that my version of events is true (for example
> Claimant says she did not wax entire vehicle - I say not true) The
> Claimant made one claim which is quite central to her case and which I
> proved was false and which she admitted in the witness stand was false.
> (The judge makes no mention of this in his judgment - why is that?) On
> many other details I believe the evidence supports my version of events
> and proves hers to be wrong. Yet the judge has taken her version of
> events completely on board (the waxing of vehicle is an important point
> as you will see when all the documents are posted up).
I thought the judge covered this point adequately, in that instructions
given to her included "Fine spray on body work comes off very easily with
Mer or Autogym or any good car wax."
Whether she waxed the whole car, or just a small area, it was something that
you had advised her to do to assist in the removal of overspray (something
that shouldn't have been present had the work been carried out correctly).
>
> So when you read the judgment with my commentary (when I have time to
> write it) you will get a completely different picture.
If it were not, there would have been no need for a court case.
>
> Cheers Chris
>
chrissyboy
Raster Ferian wrote:
>
> I thought the judge covered this point adequately, in that
instructions
> given to her included "Fine spray on body work comes off very easily
with
> Mer or Autogym or any good car wax."
>
> Whether she waxed the whole car, or just a small area, it was
something that
> you had advised her to do to assist in the removal of overspray
(something
> that shouldn't have been present had the work been carried out
correctly).
> >
> > So when you read the judgment with my commentary (when I have time
to
> > write it) you will get a completely different picture.
>
> If it were not, there would have been no need for a court case.
We are going off track here but I guess I have to justify myself. The
process I carried out is called KLEENtect. This is a paint finish
which goes on the underside. Waxoyl is an anti corrosive wax which I
inject into the cavities. Waxoyl cleans off easily with white spirit.
I can clean off KLEENtect very easily and quickly with a special
solvent/cleaner and rag. How much masking I do is a trade off between
the time spent masking and the time spent cleaning. On some areas it
is quickey just not to mask. KLEENtect takes me 3 days to do. First
day is removing Land Rovers own underseal. Second day is applying
KLEENtect, third day is cleaning and valeting. The Claimant told me
that she could only spare 2 days and that she did not want me to do the
valeting. She said she could do it herself. (I agreed - big mistake).
Anyway I finished late in the evening and did not see that some very
fine vapour had settled on the bodywork. This would normally have been
easily removed by me during the valeting process. She took the
vehicle home then WAXED the entire vehicle. Car "wax" nowadays has no
wax in it. It is all synthetic polymers. This effectively made a
"mask" and prevented the solvent/cleaner from working.
I don't want to re-run the trial here because it took all my time last
year.
Here is a snippet from my statement on this.
The Claimant makes several demonstrably false claims about the
circumstances surrounding my removal of
the overspray at her house in ......... (The term "overspray"
gives a
somewhat misleading impression.
What was present on her vehicle was an extremely light, imperceptible
to the
casual observer, fine dust where paint vapour had settled on the
vehicle).
I assert that when the claimant phoned me to tell me there was a
problem she
told me that she had waxed the entire vehicle. I told her that she
should have
phoned me immediately when she noted there was a problem as this
"wax" would
seal in the vapour dust and make it impervious to the Xylene based
cleaner/solvent which normally removes it very easily. (Modern car
"wax" in
fact contains no wax at all but is made from water based acrylic
polymers) In
her Witness Statement of 5th December 03 she states in paragraph 10.
".........I have already indicated that I started waxing one of the
rear side
panels. That did not remove any residue and I telephoned the
Defendant. He
advised me not to undertake any further waxing so I ceased."
How could this possibly be true?. I refer the Court to the witness
statement
by my driver, Roger .... on page C3 of my Defence Bundle. "There
was a very
slight deposit of KLEENtect paint vapour on the bottom part of the
vehicle's
bodywork. Using a special solvent, Chris was abe to wipe this away
very
quickly. This left no trace on the paintwork which appeared as good as
new. I
would estimate that it took about 5 minutes to wipe this residue
off." My
present driver, Bob .....has helped me do the final valeting on dozens
of
KLEENtected vehicles. He will be attending court as a witness. (I
did not
summons Roger as he has a pronounced stutter and Bob's statement was
out of
time so I could not produce Bob. I asked my book-keeper to talk to
both of
them as I had summonsed her and I wanted her to tell the Judge what
they had
said but he refused to let her say anything about this.
The Claimant says that I had to use "flatting and polishing"
techniques NOT
because of the "waxing" she had carried out but because of the
inherent wear
resistance of the KLEENtect which I trumpet in my advertising and that
this is
why it took me all day to remove the vapour dust. I answer this with
a
question to her: "Why then is there now no remaining overspray on
the
windscreen and side windows"? Mr. Jones states in his report of
16th May
(page 1 second para):
"Upon applying the windscreen wipers there was clearly substance on
the
windscreen"
So why is there now no remaining trace of vapour dust on the
windscreen? The
answer is that I removed it very easily during my visit to Glossop
using a rag
and the Xylene solvent cleaner because naturally the Claimant had not
waxed the
windscreen. If her version of events were true, then the windscreen
would now
be covered in scratches because I would have had to use "flatting and
polishing" techniques on the windscreen. I can provide further
evidence that
the KLEENtect can normally be removed very easily with the solvent as I
say:
The Claimant has promised to produce her vehicle at the final hearing.
There
are two small patches of overspray remaining, one on the front valance
bottom
and one on one of the sill covers. I will have materials with me at
the
hearing and I can demonstrate how this can still be removed using the
solvent
cleaner. I am betting that the Claimant will either not bring her
vehicle to
the Court hearing after all or will not allow me to demonstrate this.
She
will probably decline on the grounds that the solvent could do further
damage
to her vehicle but I will demonstrate on my own vehicle that normal
car
paintwork is unaffected. I believe she will "wax" the patches
again to make
them impervious to the solvent but I have done some research and now
know how
to safely remove the polymer.
(I have remove the last paragraph because I make an accusation which
was probably unwise to make (although I'm sure its true) and I don't
want to repeat
it in public even when I am not giving any names.
The claimant did bring her vehicle but the judge refused to let me give
any demonstrations.
Could we get back on track please and address the question of what
grounds I can use to appeal?
Cheers Chris
PS. All the documents will be posted up in due course.
Dave Baker
>From: "chrissyboy" ch...@before-n-after.co.uk
>Date: 29/12/04 14:40 GMT Standard Time
>Message-id: <1104331226.4...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
>
>Hi Todal,
>
>OK. Here you go. Names removed to protect the guilty.
<snip>
Frankly If I were you I'd give this whole business up and accept your fault.
I'm not an expert on paint but I'm also not exactly unversed in the matter of
vehicles and vehicle repair. You've taken a brand new and expensive vehicle,
applied a product the merits of which I can't comment on and got overspray from
that over most of the paintwork. You've then tried to remedy that and failed.
In short a bodge followed by a botched repair.
The judge appears to have been as fair as anyone could expect other than
possibly in the matter of diminution of value. He's reduced the claimed costs
for areas that looked fine to him, he's not agreed with the claims of "burn
through" and he's reduced the claimed diminution of value. However, a competent
repair is supposed to bring a damaged vehicle back to its new condition and it
isn't a normal feature of accident repair claims to include such a thing in
compensation. Additionally a Land Rover is going to depreciate like a stone
anyway.
As to the supposed unfit and lying expert witness I fail to see your point. He
is acting for the court and is hardly going to say that buffing will definitely
work when there is no guarantee that it would. You have already removed a
certain thickness of paint by using abrasives. Buffing would remove more. No
one in his right mind would claim to be certain that areas of paintwork might
not end up damaged or worn right through after buffing. Your own witnesses can
hardly be blamed for also being uncertain whether buffing would work. Even if
it restored the surface finish it would be a thinner and more easily damaged
paint layer after abrasives and buffing and personally I can't see any owner of
a brand new vehicle accepting this as a proper repair.
I suspect that to anyone impartial it looks like you've done your damndest to
wriggle out of a botched job and a botched repair. Maybe take more care of
expensive vehicles in future or find another line of work.
Forget trying to trumpet to the world that you've been hard done by on a
website because it's going to have the opposite effect to that which you are
hoping for. What you should have done in the first place was take the vehicle
to whatever expert repairers were necessary and paid what it cost to restore it
to the satisfaction of the owner who appears to have given you every
opportunity to resolve this without the need for court. You should have
liability insurance to cover this anyway but I suspect that part of the problem
is you do not.
The more you post on this the more it screams "cowboy tradesman" and very few
people are going to sympathise with one of those. Maybe if you'd spent a bit
more time and money on the repairs and tried to be a bit more accomodating to
the owner you'd have saved a lot more in court costs and diminution of value
claims.
What you've done, as is not uncommon, is ended up in an entrenched position
where you've finally lost sight of your initial liability and the grief you've
put the claimant through and tried to convince yourself that you are the one
being hard done by here. Give it up and get on with your life.
As to the diminution of value claim. I do have some sympathy for you under this
head. Whether you have any recourse in law now a judge has ruled on the matter
I will have to leave others to comment on. I suspect there is an element of
penalty clause in all this for the determined way in which you have opposed her
claim and put her to more stress and grief.
One option might have been to offer to buy the vehicle from the claimant at a
pre-damage market value, pay for proper repairs and sell it again for what you
could get.
--
Dave Baker - Puma Race Engines (www.pumaracing.co.uk)
chrissyboy
Dave Baker wrote:
> Frankly If I were you I'd give this whole business up and accept your
fault.
> I'm not an expert on paint but I'm also not exactly unversed in the
matter of
> vehicles and vehicle repair. You've taken a brand new and expensive
vehicle,
> applied a product the merits of which I can't comment on and got
overspray from
> that over most of the paintwork. You've then tried to remedy that and
failed.
> In short a bodge followed by a botched repair.
This is fair comment and this is how it might appear. I know what the
truth is and that is what hurts. Yes, I did not do a perfect job. I
was really bloody stupid. She let me talk her into doing a two day
job instead of 3. Yes, there was some overspray on the body so yes a
bodged job. I tried to remedy the situation. Again as you say, I
failed (what I should have done at this point was say - sorry, you
have waxed the whole vehicle making it impossible for me to remove
easily - therefore it is now your problem) I removed the overspray
with 2000 wet and dry. As the judge said you can hardly see any marks.
This would indicate to any car body repair man that this can easily be
polished out. It certainly DOES NOT need respraying.
Now the judge has accepted everything that the claimant's expert has
said. (What really got my goat was where he put in his report that
there was "burn through and refused to back down from this")
The expert says:
1. If you have a repair then you have to repaint the whole vehicle
because there will be a difference in colour.
2. Machine polishing will go dull.
3. A fresh coat of lacquer will flake off.
I don't know if you have a bodyshop with your business but suppose you
do.
Imagine this scenario:
A crook with a high value vehicle, lets say a Porsche worth £60.000
brings the vehicle to you for some minor thing. To fix some trim or
something. He takes it away and gets a crooked mate with an under the
arches body shop to spray a bit of overspray on a wing. He then
tells you that you have put overspray on his car. You say 1. No I did
not. He insists that you did. You know that you did not but you say
"Right -bring it in and we'll just polish off the bit of overspray. He
says "no, polishing is not satisfactory, it will just go dull. You say
"cobblers" we machine polish cars all day long when we repair them. He
says, "Right I'll sue you". You say "go ahead". (You think no judge
is going to accept this preposterous story).
You get to Court. Lets say he has the same "expert witness" as my
claimant had. The judge says, "right, I believe this gentlemans
expert witness, you will have to pay £3.000 for a complete respray,
£6.000 for diminution of value, £10.000 costs. You have spent
£10.000 on costs yourself. That means it has cost you £29.000.
You'd be a bit pissed off wouldn't you?
>
> The judge appears to have been as fair as anyone could expect other
than
> possibly in the matter of diminution of value. He's reduced the
claimed costs
> for areas that looked fine to him, he's not agreed with the claims of
"burn
> through" and he's reduced the claimed diminution of value. However, a
competent
> repair is supposed to bring a damaged vehicle back to its new
condition and it
> isn't a normal feature of accident repair claims to include such a
thing in
> compensation.
Well only because the public are ignorant about this. Believe me if
you go to court you will be awarded diminution of value. There is
precedent.
Additionally a Land Rover is going to depreciate like a stone
> anyway.
Not necessarily. Land Rovers have a very big following. They hold
their value very well. (Not necessarily an argument which strengthens
my case but I am nothing if not honest.)
>
> As to the supposed unfit and lying expert witness I fail to see your
point. He
> is acting for the court and is hardly going to say that buffing will
definitely
> work when there is no guarantee that it would. You have already
removed a
> certain thickness of paint by using abrasives.
An infinitesimal amount. I used 2000 grade wet and dry which is not
even used by body shops for "flatting" because it is too fine. (They
use 1.500 grade) A mechanical polish would have put this back to new
in about 2 minutes. I put some much worse flatting marks on my own
new car. My expert had a portable machine polisher with him. He could
have demonstrated to the judge just how easily this could have been
brought back to new and the judge would have understood straight away.
The judge would not allow this. Why?
Buffing would remove more. No
> one in his right mind would claim to be certain that areas of
paintwork might
> not end up damaged or worn right through after buffing. Your own
witnesses can
> hardly be blamed for also being uncertain whether buffing would work.
My own witness says that he is sure that buffing will restore the
finish (actually buffing IMPROVES the finish). The only part of the
vehicle he is not sure of is the roof. Well that is easy, the roof
can simply be re-lacquered. Cost £150.
Even if
> it restored the surface finish it would be a thinner and more easily
damaged
> paint layer after abrasives and buffing and personally I can't see
any owner of
> a brand new vehicle accepting this as a proper repair.
The lacquer layer is about 6 microns. Contrary to what the judge says
in his judgment the flatting marks are NOT all over the car. The doors
and sides are not affected. I would estimate that where I did flat I
removed .2 microns at most. On the roof I probaby removed 1 micron.
To remove the marks probably another .3 microns would go. Mechanical
polishing usually involves polishing a hard wax into the paint surface.
This could add more thickness than was taken away. The paint finish
would be improved. I quote from page 69 of Car Body Repair, the
standard textbook for City and Guilds: "Burnishing helps to smooth out
the surface whilst imparting a fuller gloss and revealing depth to the
colour. Polishing if carefully done, will improve the lustre still
further and provide a protective coating over the paint film"
>
> I suspect that to anyone impartial it looks like you've done your
damndest to
> wriggle out of a botched job and a botched repair. Maybe take more
care of
> expensive vehicles in future or find another line of work.
No. This is not true. I gave the Claimant a signed piece of paper
saying she should take the vehicle to a body shop and have it put back
to as new condition and that I would pay for this. (I said nothing at
all about polishing) She took it to one of the top body shops. They
said "mechanical polish". I said , "fine, I will pay for that, and a
hire car while its in there and a further payment for your
inconvenience and trouble"
>
> Forget trying to trumpet to the world that you've been hard done by
on a
> website because it's going to have the opposite effect to that which
you are
> hoping for.
This may be true in that some people may have the same reaction as you.
I think if you read the transcript and all the documents though you
will agree that I have been hard done by.
What you should have done in the first place was take the vehicle
> to whatever expert repairers were necessary and paid what it cost to
restore it
> to the satisfaction of the owner
I did this immediately. See above.
who appears to have given you every
> opportunity to resolve this without the need for court.
No she didn't. She said I should pay for a respray which is
definitely not necessary as any Car Body Repair shop would tell you.
If there is overspray contamination of a metallic finish it is either
polished out or relacquered. There is certainly no need to respray.
You should have
> liability insurance to cover this anyway but I suspect that part of
the problem
> is you do not.
Yes. I do have liability cover. I have not had recourse to my insurers
because I guessed that they would take a pragmatic view and settle
whatever the rights and wrongs because litigation would be expensive.
(I am now trying to get extra "litigation insurance like the Claimant
in this case). If I had let my insurers settle they would have added
an extra £2.000 to my premium every year. (I have already paid an
extra £2.000 a year for the past 3 years for a false claim that is
still in litigation. That is nothing to do with a customer. For
obvious reasons I can't go into it but I can promise you that the claim
is completely without foundation. Unfortunately its my word against
someone elses.
> The more you post on this the more it screams "cowboy tradesman" and
very few
> people are going to sympathise with one of those. Maybe if you'd
spent a bit
> more time and money on the repairs and tried to be a bit more
accomodating to
> the owner you'd have saved a lot more in court costs and diminution
of value
> claims.
I did my very best to be accomodating to the owner. I would not
accomodate her with a respray which I did not believe the vehicle
warranted.
>
> What you've done, as is not uncommon, is ended up in an entrenched
position
> where you've finally lost sight of your initial liability and the
grief you've
> put the claimant through and tried to convince yourself that you are
the one
> being hard done by here. Give it up and get on with your life.
No. You are wrong. I accept that I am not perfect. (No one is).
Where a customer as a complaint I put it right. I don't see why I
should pay £5.500 for something that can be more than put right for
£150.
>
> As to the diminution of value claim. I do have some sympathy for you
under this
> head. Whether you have any recourse in law now a judge has ruled on
the matter
> I will have to leave others to comment on. I suspect there is an
element of
> penalty clause in all this for the determined way in which you have
opposed her
> claim and put her to more stress and grief.
No. You are wrong here. If you have a new or fairly new accident
damaged vehicle you are entitled to "diminution of value" That is the
law. There is precedent. (I'm sure there are plenty of people on here
who will put us right on that one). I'm not disputing the right or
wrong of "diminution of value". What I'm saying is THERE IS NO BLOODY
DIMINUTION OF VALUE! Mechanical polishing would IMPROVE the finish and
make the vehicle BETTER THAN NEW.
>
> One option might have been to offer to buy the vehicle from the
claimant at a
> pre-damage market value, pay for proper repairs and sell it again for
what you
> could get.
This is a very good suggestion and one I just wish I had made. In fact
I do offere a "buy back guarantee" on all KLEENtected Land Rovers. The
guarantee is "I will buy the Land Rover back at any time for Parkers
Trade Price plus the cost of the KLEENtect (subject to conditions -
reasonable condition of bodywork and mechanicals etc). I made no
mention of this in court or pre-court. I should have.
Anyway Dave of Puma Racing Engines - nice to talk to you and thank you
for taking the time to write such a long piece. Although as you can
see I felt you had the wrong end of the stick, your input has been
very valuable. Now I can see what that judgment looks like to an
outsider. I knew I should not have posted it up without all the other
documentation.
Cheers Chris
Marshall Rice
chrissyboy <ch...@before-n-after.co.uk> writes
>This is fair comment and this is how it might appear. I know what the
>truth is and that is what hurts.
It no longer really matters what the truth is, as you failed to impress
it adequately on the judge when you had the chance.
One of the essentials of any civil justice system worth the name is
finality of actions. Not only must the rights of unsuccessful parties to
remedy mistakes be balanced against the rights of successful parties not
to be subjected to endless appeals, but court time is a valuable and
limited resource and must be, in effect, rationed.
You've had your share of it. You've had your day in court and
(presumably) had every opportunity to put your case as effectively as it
would stand.
If the judge got the law wrong you'd be entitled to appeal on those
grounds, but as far as I can see he didn't.
If he got the facts wrong, and it may be that he did, a high degree of
blame for that must rest with you and/or your witnesses, which is why
for an appeal against findings of fact to succeed the appellant must
ordinarily either produce new evidence which wasn't available to him at
the time of trial, or demonstrate that the findings were ones which no
reasonable tribunal could have reached on the evidence presented.
That is an intentionally stiff test and one which, it seems to me,
you've very little chance of meeting.
Get over it and move on.
--
Marshall Rice
(Put the bin out to email me)
chrissyboy
Hi Marshall,
I take on board everything you are saying and indeed I understood it
anyway.
You say:
> ...the time of trial, or demonstrate that the findings were ones
which no
> reasonable tribunal could have reached on the evidence presented.
Well I believe the judgment is perverse. I have a limited time to
appeal. If I can appeal and have a reasonable chance of succeeding,
then I want to do that. I am not whinging on here about the result
except to try and get a handle on what my options are. If I cannot
appeal and I have to swallow the judgment then I may have to do that.
I will NOT become obsessed by it. I will move on. Although it has
been extremely painful and stressful I have learnt a great deal about
the justice system - some parts of it I admire greatly, some of which
I am shocked by. But I now have a much better picture than before. So
it has been an enriching experience. One thing I will do whatever
happens is hold up a mirror to its imperfections.
I will be seeking advice from a barrister as soon as she comes back
from holiday. I was hoping you could all give me some concrete advice
but I guess without all the documents this is difficult. Thanks very
much for the advice so far anyway. Particular thanks to Todal whose
advice is always excellent.
Cheers Chris
Peter Parry
<ch...@before-n-after.co.uk> wrote:
>Posting this up on a website will only cost me about £300 so I think
>it is worth doing. It might help others.
You have already published the name of the owner concerned and
publicly accused her of dishonesty. Putting up a website covering
the incident (even if on it you delete her name) would probably not
be terribly wise. What you have already said cannot be altered.
> I certainly shall not let it ruin my life.
Make a web site of the incident and, in view of the statements you
have made about the owner you named, there is a good chance your life
could take a distinctly downwards financial turn.
--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/