There were a number of pre-Trial occurrences that are listed below.
ADDENDUM TO WRITTEN SUBMISSION – 22/12/2024
This has become necessary because I only became aware late morning on 20 December 2024 that in K02LS289 Trial Bundle B, John Duggan’s First Statement of Truth had been fabricated by Addleshaw Goddard inasmuch as it was in fact 6 images rather than the original 6 pages of text that had been created on 18 September 2023.
On discovering this anomaly it threw everything out of kilter because instead of adding the final touches to my written submission that I was in the process of doing, I firstly had to make sense of what happened and I had less than 4 hours to meet the 4pm target. Clearly I had to incorporate this new evidence into my submission and whilst I did so I had no spare time to carry out any further investigation. As it was I emailed the Court in time at 15.45.
By the following morning I began to comprehend the implications for all parties concerned, the Claimants, Defendants and most of all Addleshaw Goddard and that is not forgetting the financial costs for both parties which was at least £150,000. I had also carried out some legal research and this opened a can of worms suggesting professional negligence, contempt of court and attempting to pervert the course of justice.
Prior to the Trial Addleshaw Goddard were the party responsible for the preparation and delivery of the electronic Trial Bundles to both the Court and the Defendant in accordance with the ‘General guidance on electronic court bundles’ click on the url link below:
Notwithstanding that they did in reality fail to carry out their duty of care and the Defendant maintains that it was tantamount to Profession Negligence at least.
Professional negligence is defined differently from ordinary or gross negligence, and that’s because it’s a very specific type of negligence. Professional negligence can only occur if the injured party has suffered financial loss as a direct result of malpractice carried out by the party contracted to carry out work in a professional capacity.
Professional negligence may occur if a solicitor is proven to have breached a duty of care leading to financial loss. It is imperative in those circumstances to be able to prove causation between the negligence and the financial loss it has inflicted on the other party.
It then occurred to me that I needed to carry out a more thorough investigation to see if there was anything else I had missed. This is when I unearthed more of the anomalies:
Following the Trial the Defendant’s finances were such that we could not afford the official recording so we had to rely on my memory such as it is, so I apologise in advance for any unintended errors that happen when I try to recall the following events. For example, I believe there were a number of times that I became exasperated during cross examination of witnesses because I couldn’t find what I was looking for and the Judge also seemed to be exasperated because I was continually failing to comply with time deadlines set by Court.
At no stage during the Trial did I suspect that AG were responsible for my dilemma in not being able to find the evidence I was searching for. Throughout this whole dispute they had so many lawyers acting on their behalf so how could they all have failed such a simple task? It is not as if there were 100’s of pages in that Bundle as there were only 25 and more than 20 per cent of pages were fake!
The Defendant referred to the word tick in their first email to Richard Bailey that was published on the Internet in March 2022 and to view it click on the url link below:
In this website I pointed out to Richard Bailey the importance of the tick box and emphasized by colouring it in blue.
More recently in her evidence at Trial Karen Glachan re-iterated on oath she had no memory of ticking a box even when I cross examined her and displayed on the courtroom screen the necessity of ticking the box in order to enable her access to their invoices in the Defendant’s Client Accounts website.
At Trial when one searched either electronically or otherwise for the word, tick in K02LS289 Trial Bundle A or K02LS289 Trial Bundle B there was only 1 result in the Claimant’s evidence and none were in the Defendant’s evidence which were delivered in Bundles to Court by Addleshaw Goddard and that is why I was so exasperated.
NINTH STATEMENT OF TRUTH – 14/01/2025
When I first checked the Trial Bundle (K02LS289 Trial Bundle B-1.pdf) in the lever arch folder that contained John Duggan’s first Statement of Truth I was lulled into a false sense of security because I’d seen it before so there were no alarm bells as the 6 pages looked absolutely ok. It was only when just before the deadline on the 20 December 2024 that I realised something was wrong when I tried searching the electronic version of the above Bundle stored on my windows based laptop for the “tick” word and it found 0 results whilst I was expecting at least 2 results.
Since emailing the Addendum to the Court on the 22 December 2024 I have continued to search for the electronic version of my first Statement of Truth that looked identical to the electronic version in the above Bundle and I am pleased to report it was found in the electronic Bundle at the Hearing before Mr Justice Hill on 20 November 2023. However this statement of truth returns 2 results when searching for the “tick” word on my window’s laptop and in order to make it easier for the Court to compare both electronic versions of John Duggan’s first Statement of Truth I have added the latest url link to the Defendant’s Written Submission website at the website below:
www.wsbymjd.2yu.uk/pdf-files/K80LS081-Bundle.pdf
When clicking the url link above if you are using a Windows based computer hold the Ctrl key on the keyboard down with the left finger and hold the letter A key down with the right finger you will notice all the text on the screen is highlighted. Conversely when you carry out the same procedure to the url link in paragraph 06 above you will notice that the text in John Duggan’s first Statement of Truth is not highlighted. This explains why searching the Trial Bundle above returns a 0 result when searching for the word "tick" because John Duggan's first Statement of Truth doesn't contain any text. Should you be using an Apple Mac based computer change the Ctrl key for the Command key.
One further matter the Defendant would like to draw the Court’s attention to is the following attempt to prove that when Karen Glachan accessed the Claimant’s invoice area on the 8 March 2022 as she stated in evidence at the Trial the following website looked exactly the same then as it does now when clicking on the url link below:
The proof can be seen by checking a snapshot of the root directory of the above url link that contains 7 folders and 16 files and when observing the dates to the right of each of those folders and files the Court will notice that the most recent modified date is Oct 13 2020 and that proves the tick box and all the written instructions on screen were present on the 8 March 2022. The snapshot can be viewed by clicking on the link below:
The Defendant is prepared to deliver its laptop to the County Court in Leeds to enable a Court appointed expert to examine the relevant root directory to verify what is stated herein.
TENTH STATEMENT OF TRUTH – 17/02/2025
I firstly direct the Court’s attention to paragraph 13 above where I alleged the Defendant’s Terms and Conditions were not included in the Bundles provided to the Court and the Defendant. This was an inadvertent error for which I sincerely apologise as this was my fault.
Since my last communication with the Court I have continued investigations into what happened from the start of the dispute up to and including the Trial.
If the Court will recall in the 3rd paragraph of the Addendum the Defendant suggested professional negligence, contempt of court and attempting to pervert the course of justice which are all serious misdemeanors. However it has recently come to my attention that whoever was responsible for creating the Bundles delivered to the Court for the Trial also tampered with the evidence and therefore could be facing a much more serious allegation because even in a Civil Trial this is a criminal offence.
I have also delved into the Defendant’s options in the light of Addleshaw Goddard’s failures regarding their responsibilities concerning the said Bundles. At first glance it appears the Defendant has a number of options, firstly write to the managing partners at Addleshaw Goddard, secondly write to the Solicitors Regulation Authority and finally if necessary write to the Legal Ombudsman outlining the wrongdoings carried out by the Claimant’s legal advisors who were represented at the Trial by partner Gareth Jones.
To this end I have visited the SRA’s website and copied, pasted and highlighted the specific instances that relate to the Defendant’s concerns and published them below and to view them click on the following underlined link in blue:
www.wsbymjd.2yu.uk/Solicitors-RA
None of the foregoing will occur until after the announcement of the Trial verdict.
In paragraph 11 of the Defendant’s Written Submission, I refer to page 241 which is Web4orce Client’s Account Gateway and I have published it below and to view it click on the following underlined link in blue:
www.wsbymjd.2yu.uk/Page-241.pdf
The above pdf file is not simply an image it is also a textual document and if the Judge is using a Windows computer and presses the Ctrl key on the keyboard down with the left finger and presses the letter A key down with the right finger he will notice all the text in the above pdf file on the screen is highlighted. Should he be using an Apple Mac based computer then pressing the Command key on the keyboard down with the left finger and pressing the letter A key down with the right finger will highlight all the text as previously explained. Had this file been included in the electronic Trial Bundles a computer search of the said Bundles for the word tick would have located this pdf file had it been present but, it wasn’t.
The fact the said pdf file was not available at the Trial was unfortunate for all parties however the fallout for Addleshaw Goddard is much more serious in the said circumstances because their failure has signaled they behaved dishonestly. This particular aspect of dishonesty in law is fraud, by their failure to disclose information while under a legal duty to do so with the intention to make a gain of at least £150,000 according to the Claimant’s Schedule of Loss.
This meant the Defendant was unable to cross examine the Claimant’s witnesses in relation to the said pdf file which was pivotal in proving there was a contract between the Claimant and the Defendant especially when Karen Glachan admitted on 21 May 2024 in paragraph 6 of her First Statement of Truth that she accessed Web4orce Client’s Account Gateway on 8 March 2022.
It’s important to note just 12 days later, the Defendant published www.rickbaileythwaites.2yu.uk on the Internet which was a copy of an email sent to Richard Bailey on 20 March 2022 that highlighted the relationship between the tick box and the Defendant’s Terms and Conditions. So the question is how could someone with the skill set of Head of IT at Daniel Thwaites Plc, namely Karen Glachan been unaware of the tick box every time she accessed Web4orce Client’s Account Gateway which also happened in January 2023 according to her Statement of Truth?
ELEVENTH STATEMENT OF TRUTH – 05/05/2025
On the 10 October 2024 the Claimant emailed an out of court settlement offer to the Defendant. The said email can be viewed by clicking on the underlined link below:
On the 24 October 2024 the Claimant emailed an additional out of court offer to the Defendant that was essentially the same as their original offer.
On the 26 November 2024 the Claimant emailed a final out of court settlement offer to the Defendant that was essentially the same as their original offer.
Considering the above evidence the Claimant emailed the Defendant on three separate occasions this triggered the signs of the Claimant’s increasing desperation just days before the Trial date whilst also remembering they were prepared to write off their legal costs amounting to over £150,000 inc vat which meant the Defendant was liable for the whole amount because it was not registered for vat. These costs can be verified by clicking on the underlined link below:
From both parties perspectives this was a huge sum but, it also showed the lengths the Claimant were prepared to go to in order to avoid the upcoming Trial. The Defendant however always wanted the dispute to go to Court because it believed that given a fair Trial it had the evidence to make a contest of it, but unbeknown to the Defendant the Claimant’s legal team had plans in place that would ensure it was anything but a fair Trial.
Having failed in their attempt to settle out of court the Claimant’s legal team lead by Gareth Jones a partner at Addleshaw Goddard LLP deliberately mislead both the Defendant and Court on 27 November 2024 in response to an email from the Defendant dated the 15 November 2024 and both emails can be viewed by clicking on the underlined link below:
Two days later and totally at odds with what was stated in their email Gareth Jones escorted all three witnesses Ann Yerburgh, Caroline Cockshott and Kevin Wood to the Trial on 29 November 2024 knowing that the Court and particularly the 85 year old Litigant representing the Defendant would be caught completely off guard and being a one day Trial it meant the Defendant had little choice but agree to release all three witnesses from giving evidence as he had not brought any of the previously prepared questions to the Trial. This subterfuge orchestrated by Gareth Jones was a deliberate attempt to pervert the course of justice.
On 24 December 2024 just days after the Written Submissions had been emailed to the Court in accordance with its instructions, Gareth Jones forwarded an unusually friendly email to John Duggan. At the time this was so unexpected because the Claimant’s legal team was facing very serious allegations including evidence fraud, professional negligence, contempt of court, attempting to pervert the course of justice and tampering with evidence. The said email can be viewed by clicking on the underlined link below:
The Defendant responded indicating a willingness to meet but Gareth Jones failed to follow up on his invite which bearing in mind his employer’s predicament was hardly surprising.
In the build-up to the Trial they decided to weaponise the Claimant’s legal costs which amounted to more than £150,000 in the hope the Defendant would accept the terms of the out of court settlement offer which is probably a strategy they have used previously but, on this occasion they misjudged their opponent who being a Cold War veteran of many years wasn’t going to rollover that easily.
The next event that badly misfired was the wording contained in the Claimant’s offers to settle out of court where they stated in essence they were confident they would succeed in both the Main Claim whilst also defeating the Defendant’s counterclaim. Unsurprisingly, Claimants are always confident before the Trial but, the more often they repeat it the less convincing it sounds.
The next incident that was ill thought out was when they escorted three unscheduled witnesses to the Trial and thereby caused the hearing of evidence to start two hours later than planned and ultimately lead the Judge to reserving his judgement which resulted in both parties being allocated a further three weeks to produce their written submissions.
This was arguably their biggest mistake because it gave the Defendant’s director who is an Internet Entrepreneur the opportunity to discover the sophisticated attempt to evade justice that had been perpetrated by the Claimant’s legal team. The Court should also be notified that Addleshaw Goddard had delegated six of their employees to the task of preparing the Trial Bundles that were delivered to both the Court and Defendant and they were as follows:
It poses the question were any of the above to blame for tampering with evidence and/or checking the validity of the Bundles and this will hopefully be announced in the near future. Incidentally the above list of employees was deduced from the table located at the foot of the Claimant’s Schedule of Costs which can be found by clicking on the following underlined link:
According to Addleshaw Goddard’s website they are the largest commercial firm in Leeds insofar as they have 570 staff located in its Sovereign Square Headquarters.
Another matter of contention I should like to draw the Courts attention to concerns Richard Bailey’s evidence at the Trial when I had the opportunity to challenge him under cross examination with regard to his First Statement of Truth where he wrote that the Claimant did not purchase the business when buying the Harts Head Hotel on 2 March 2020.
His response was a plausible lengthy speech which he articulated in a convincing manner when attempting to mislead the Court and whilst he didn’t fool me I was under such pressure at the time trying to locate my Seventh Statement of Truth to rebut his reply in Court that quite frankly I failed abysmally. It was only quite recently that I discovered the reason was because my Seventh Statement of Truth was not included in the Trial Bundles despite being requested to include it in my email to the Claimant’s legal team dated 11 November 2024. The said email can be viewed by clicking on the underlined link below:
The failure by the Claimant’s legal team to include my Seventh Statement of Truth is another very serious allegation pointing to evidence fraud, professional negligence, contempt of court and perverting the course of justice because it contained pivotal evidence on behalf of the Defendant.
The question did the Claimant purchase the business assets when buying the Harts Head Hotel is very important to the Defendant and that is why it went to a lot of trouble to obtain documentary evidence that contradicted Richard Bailey’s evidence in the witness box and this was delivered to the Court on 10 November 2024 and copied to all three of the Claimant’s legal team as can be viewed by clicking on the link below:
followed by the specific attachment that I am referring to which is the Cricketers Inns-Wind up order-03.03.20.pdf document.
Accepting that the Claimant’s were made aware of the importance of this independent documentary evidence showing they had purchased some business assets the Defendant expected the Claimant to produce documentary evidence rebutting the Defendant’s documentary evidence but they didn’t and to date nothing has been forthcoming.
To add to Richard Bailey’s woes the Defendant has in the last week uncovered further independent documentary evidence in support of its allegation concerning whether the Claimant purchased the business assets or not and this can be viewed by clicking on the following underlined link:
Some time ago my daughter a retired Police Officer advised me to double check everything the Claimant’s witnesses stated on oath at the Trial and since I’ve learned that the Judgement Day is the 7 May 2025 I have done as she advised.
At page 69 in Trial Bundle A, Richard Bailey in his first Statement of Truth dated on the 21 May 2024 recorded that Jen Riley the Claimant’s Digital Marketing Manager emailed Linda Brooks on the 19 February 2020 and stated “It looks like John Duggan (Web4orce) owns the domain name”.
At page 61 in Trial Bundle A paragraph 7, Toni Naylor in her first Statement of Truth dated on the 21 May 2024 stated “I explained that the reason why the Claimant was interested in purchasing the URLs was because we were in the process of arranging an alternative solution regarding the HartsHead Hotel’s website”.
Being mindful that the Claimants have over the years purchased domain names for most of their 200 plus pubs, inns and hotels whilst bearing in mind they have an IT Department headed by their well qualified Karen Glachan as Head of IT one would have thought they would have checked all domains prior to leasing or offering to purchase them but clearly they haven’t.
Perhaps even more importantly, the Claimant having employed a prestigious firm of lawyers such as Addleshaw Goddard who themselves employed 11 of their own solicitors including 2 Partners to act on their behalf at a cost in excess of £150,000 the Claimant might have expected just one of the 11 solicitors to establish who were the correct owners of the following domain names:
hartsheadhotel.co.uk and hartsheadinn.co.uk
Unluckily for the Claimant and Richard Bailey they didn’t because if they had done so they would have discovered that the hartsheadhotel.co.uk was bought on 8 August 2003 and the hartsheadinn.co.uk was bought on 4 June 2007 and both domains were purchased by the Harts Head Hotel of Belle Hill, Giggleswick, Settle, North Yorkshire, BD24 0BA and have remained in its ownership up to and including today’s date thanks to the Defendant.
This of course means that when the Claimant purchased the Harts Head Hotel back in 2020 they also purchased the business assets namely the domain names.
Question of Costs
It is clear from the evidence submitted to the Court that during these proceedings the Defendant was solely represented by their only employee an 86 year old Litigant in Person whose fees were charged at £200 per hour. This came about because the Defendant could not afford the services of a barrister or solicitor and therefore involved countless hours researching the Internet that in reality amounted to significantly more than their Schedule of Costs claimed to date which is why we are asking the Court to incorporate the additional hours we have included below.
This Written Submission has taken at least 150 hours of my time.