Well it turned out to be a long day in court yesterday. The chief executive was attempting to get an order to force sale of my home, within a few weeks, for the libel damages (now around £36k plus interest).
Unusually for enforcement cases like this, the judge used his discretion and held the hearing in public. I was asked if I objected but it was fine by me, I have nothing to hide. The chief executive wasn't there himself.
I presented my arguments under Article 8 ECHR, the right to family life, home etc, incorporating the question of the unlawful funding of the counterclaim. I said that as the claimant had been funded by the council, and had offered to hand over any damages to the council he was acting as a public authority and therefore this gave me more protection under Article 8. I also questioned the motives of the chief executive in his pursuit of this money.
My husband, joint owner of the property had not been served with the claim at all, and it turned out yesterday that he should have been. The judge made him a party to the proceedings and he was also able to speak in defence of our home.
Essentially my main points centred around the reasons for us to keep our home, our sons have a business based here and Cae Brwyn (our home as well as my Twitter name), built by ourselves, is the centre of family life. The forced loss of our home would have a devastating effect on our family and the means to earn a crust.
Counsel for Mr James, from London, detailed the findings of Justice Tugendhat, my failure to offer sufficiently large instalment payments, refusals to pay (the judge felt I'd said this in the heat of various moments), my credibility, and so forth.
The hearing took an interesting turn when the judge asked to see evidence that Mr James had offered to hand any damages over to the council. This was, as I mentioned above, in relation to the Derbyshire Rule and in relation to his motives.
Adjourning for lunch I arranged with the court staff to provide the judge with a copy of the report to the executive board recommending the indemnity, in which Mr James states;
'The Head of Paid Service has confirmed that he is not motivated by a wish to benefit financially and that accordingly should his action be successful any damages awarded to him will be paid over to the Authority and will not be kept by him.'
Counsel for Mr James had to take instructions as he seemed to be unaware of this arrangement. He then told the judge that Mr James had changed his mind, he was entitled to do so, and could, in fact, choose to stuff the money in the 'gutter' if he so wished.
The judge seemed less than impressed and commented that it was remarkable for a head of paid service, the chief officer, to make such an official commitment and then change his mind.
He noted, later, that Mr James was probably not in urgent need of the money.
The judge listened carefully to both sides and retired to consider his judgement for a short while.
In the end, no matter what my article 8 rights were, there was an order against me which still stood. He issued an order for sale but suspended it for ten years as long as I make monthly payments of £250. He had asked me earlier for an affordable and realistic offer and I had said £80, so £250 is an alarming amount.
However, our home is safe for now and we are looking forward to the summer when we will be able to forage for nuts and berries to sustain us through the winter months. Mr James will now have a little addition to his monthly salary.
Then came the issue of costs for the hearing plus the prep work, which I was now liable to pay. The chief executive's cost schedule arrived in my inbox last week with a hefty thump. At £21,763.73 I thought it was a bit steep, which was an understatement. The judge seemed to agree and went through it there and then. He cut it by a third, including a payment to a media lawyer, leaving £14,348.61. This is still steep, though he added it on to the damages rather than giving me 14 days to pay.
It remains a matter of opinion whether the chief executive has benefited financially from an unlawful decision in public office, and the matter of the 'change of mind' is an interesting development. For me, despite the £250 sting, at least I live to fight another day.
I'd just like to thank everyone for their help and support and a special thanks to those who came to the court. Hopefully, with council business rumbling along, (bereft of Caebrwyn's usual vigilance), and an election coming up, I'll be able to blog about something else before too long....
25th March 2017; Y Cneifiwr; Reputations in the gutter, well worth a read.
6th April 2017; I have now received the Court Order from the hearing, I am, somehow or other, to pay Mr James £250 per month until May 2032. If I default in any way he'll force sale of the house without further notice.
8th April 2017; Found on Facebook, written by AnonyNurse;
Unusually for enforcement cases like this, the judge used his discretion and held the hearing in public. I was asked if I objected but it was fine by me, I have nothing to hide. The chief executive wasn't there himself.
I presented my arguments under Article 8 ECHR, the right to family life, home etc, incorporating the question of the unlawful funding of the counterclaim. I said that as the claimant had been funded by the council, and had offered to hand over any damages to the council he was acting as a public authority and therefore this gave me more protection under Article 8. I also questioned the motives of the chief executive in his pursuit of this money.
My husband, joint owner of the property had not been served with the claim at all, and it turned out yesterday that he should have been. The judge made him a party to the proceedings and he was also able to speak in defence of our home.
Essentially my main points centred around the reasons for us to keep our home, our sons have a business based here and Cae Brwyn (our home as well as my Twitter name), built by ourselves, is the centre of family life. The forced loss of our home would have a devastating effect on our family and the means to earn a crust.
Counsel for Mr James, from London, detailed the findings of Justice Tugendhat, my failure to offer sufficiently large instalment payments, refusals to pay (the judge felt I'd said this in the heat of various moments), my credibility, and so forth.
The hearing took an interesting turn when the judge asked to see evidence that Mr James had offered to hand any damages over to the council. This was, as I mentioned above, in relation to the Derbyshire Rule and in relation to his motives.
Adjourning for lunch I arranged with the court staff to provide the judge with a copy of the report to the executive board recommending the indemnity, in which Mr James states;
'The Head of Paid Service has confirmed that he is not motivated by a wish to benefit financially and that accordingly should his action be successful any damages awarded to him will be paid over to the Authority and will not be kept by him.'
Counsel for Mr James had to take instructions as he seemed to be unaware of this arrangement. He then told the judge that Mr James had changed his mind, he was entitled to do so, and could, in fact, choose to stuff the money in the 'gutter' if he so wished.
The judge seemed less than impressed and commented that it was remarkable for a head of paid service, the chief officer, to make such an official commitment and then change his mind.
He noted, later, that Mr James was probably not in urgent need of the money.
The judge listened carefully to both sides and retired to consider his judgement for a short while.
In the end, no matter what my article 8 rights were, there was an order against me which still stood. He issued an order for sale but suspended it for ten years as long as I make monthly payments of £250. He had asked me earlier for an affordable and realistic offer and I had said £80, so £250 is an alarming amount.
However, our home is safe for now and we are looking forward to the summer when we will be able to forage for nuts and berries to sustain us through the winter months. Mr James will now have a little addition to his monthly salary.
Then came the issue of costs for the hearing plus the prep work, which I was now liable to pay. The chief executive's cost schedule arrived in my inbox last week with a hefty thump. At £21,763.73 I thought it was a bit steep, which was an understatement. The judge seemed to agree and went through it there and then. He cut it by a third, including a payment to a media lawyer, leaving £14,348.61. This is still steep, though he added it on to the damages rather than giving me 14 days to pay.
It remains a matter of opinion whether the chief executive has benefited financially from an unlawful decision in public office, and the matter of the 'change of mind' is an interesting development. For me, despite the £250 sting, at least I live to fight another day.
I'd just like to thank everyone for their help and support and a special thanks to those who came to the court. Hopefully, with council business rumbling along, (bereft of Caebrwyn's usual vigilance), and an election coming up, I'll be able to blog about something else before too long....
25th March 2017; Y Cneifiwr; Reputations in the gutter, well worth a read.
6th April 2017; I have now received the Court Order from the hearing, I am, somehow or other, to pay Mr James £250 per month until May 2032. If I default in any way he'll force sale of the house without further notice.
8th April 2017; Found on Facebook, written by AnonyNurse;
