3 ms·
> ended up not being convincing enough From my limited (non-lawyer) reading of this, they didn't actually offer any evidence. I'm not sure if they had any evid
by mbreese 11mo ago
> ended up not being convincing enough
From my limited (non-lawyer) reading of this, they didn't actually offer any evidence. I'm not sure if they had any evidence or not. But it appears that they represented themselves and didn't go through the proper procedures for offering evidence or witnesses. So all they could do was cross-examine.
My reading (from just the judgement posted) is that it is a sad thing that it came to a legal dispute at all.
- jeroenhd 11mo agoThe paragraphs under "truth defence" do seem to indicate that there was some kind of proof shown to the judge (https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/kb/2025/3063#para_57 https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/kb/2025/3063#pa...) though it's not directly posted there. The entire situation is an awful mess. I don't really understand why TR/TM didn't have a solicitor in this case. The moment they showed up without legal representation, they pretty much lost the case. I can only guess at their reasons, but two counter suits failing probably cost them a decent chunk of change that would leave anyone short on cash.
- pjc50 11mo agoI'm not surprised, given that it's very expensive, but it's also quite possible that they couldn't find someone who could give them the answer they wanted, a route to winning despite not having any evidence.