4 ms·

> I submitted my case based on written law and the judge said it did not apply to me and ordered me to omit the law from my submission, before the trial hearing

> I submitted my case based on written law and the judge said it did not apply to me and ordered me to omit the law from my submission, before the trial hearing. I wonder what this means? I don't fully trust that guy to accurately summarize issues of law.

pjc50 6y ago
One of three things has happened: - the guy has been led astray by internet law and is some kind of "sovereign citizen" or similar lunatic, in which case nothing he says should be taken at face value - he genuinely has been mistreated, and is now incredibly paranoid of lawyers and unwilling to seek representation - he got a quote for representation and an estimate of the possible losses, probably in the six figure range, and decided to cut his losses as quickly as possible (also, the use of UK libel law to bully people into silence over basically correct points has been a serious problem)
- Mauricebranagh 6y ago
  Yes with experience this dies sound like the guy was one of those people who quite often are vexatious litigant's
- TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
  Amusing (in a terrifying way) that the judge ruled the review was likely to dissuade other clients from doing business with the law firm. Isn't that the whole point of a site like TrustPilot and of reviews in general? Does this mean everyone who has ever received a negative review now has grounds to sue for defamation? A defence against defamation is evidence that the accusations are true. Did the judge even check?
  - notahacker 6y ago
    Everyone who has ever received a negative review has grounds to sue for libel, if the person who left it is unable to defend the truth or reasonable belief behind their claims. This has always been the case. A defence against libel is that the accusations are true, but if you don't submit any evidence to support that, the judge's job isn't to try to prove that you were telling the truth for you.
    - pjc50 6y ago
      > Everyone who has ever received a negative review has grounds to sue for libel Maybe, but unless they have a spare six-figure sum lying around they don't have the material capability to sue for libel. It's incredibly expensive. The sheer cost of the law makes it ineffective .. except when protecting the privileged. Or, in this case, since it's a firm of solicitors, they can represent themselves effectively.
- notahacker 6y ago
  Looking at the actual written decision, it's a combination of your first point and the guy now living in Sweden, and choosing to rely entirely on witness statements he'd made by email. One could understand mounting a defence remotely might be more tricky, but if you email a court with "I have already made it perfectly clear that this case should never be heard in court and I will not be giving it any credence or legitimacy by attending" it's probably going to make a summary judgement against you https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2021/85.html https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2021/85.html
rsynnott 6y ago
Strong FotL-y vibes.

pjc50 6y ago

One of three things has happened: - the guy has been led astray by internet law and is some kind of "sovereign citizen" or similar lunatic, in which case nothing he says should be taken at face value - he genuinely has been mistreated, and is now incredibly paranoid of lawyers and unwilling to seek representation - he got a quote for representation and an estimate of the possible losses, probably in the six figure range, and decided to cut his losses as quickly as possible (also, the use of UK libel law to bully people into silence over basically correct points has been a serious problem)

Mauricebranagh 6y ago
Yes with experience this dies sound like the guy was one of those people who quite often are vexatious litigant's
TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
Amusing (in a terrifying way) that the judge ruled the review was likely to dissuade other clients from doing business with the law firm. Isn't that the whole point of a site like TrustPilot and of reviews in general? Does this mean everyone who has ever received a negative review now has grounds to sue for defamation? A defence against defamation is evidence that the accusations are true. Did the judge even check?
- notahacker 6y ago
  Everyone who has ever received a negative review has grounds to sue for libel, if the person who left it is unable to defend the truth or reasonable belief behind their claims. This has always been the case. A defence against libel is that the accusations are true, but if you don't submit any evidence to support that, the judge's job isn't to try to prove that you were telling the truth for you.
  - pjc50 6y ago
    > Everyone who has ever received a negative review has grounds to sue for libel Maybe, but unless they have a spare six-figure sum lying around they don't have the material capability to sue for libel. It's incredibly expensive. The sheer cost of the law makes it ineffective .. except when protecting the privileged. Or, in this case, since it's a firm of solicitors, they can represent themselves effectively.
notahacker 6y ago
Looking at the actual written decision, it's a combination of your first point and the guy now living in Sweden, and choosing to rely entirely on witness statements he'd made by email. One could understand mounting a defence remotely might be more tricky, but if you email a court with "I have already made it perfectly clear that this case should never be heard in court and I will not be giving it any credence or legitimacy by attending" it's probably going to make a summary judgement against you https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2021/85.html https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2021/85.html

rsynnott 6y ago

Strong FotL-y vibes.