Court hearing January 23rd 2008

All links are to copy documents in pdf format stored at, and made available as downloads from, www.box.net, a highly reputable on-line file system provider.



Following the service upon Christopher Andrew Jones of a Statutory Demand claiming the sum of £40,000 on the following grounds (http://www.box.net/shared/static/12m30sjcwc.pdf one page ), he applied to set it aside with service of his first witness statement (http://www.box.net/shared/static/mchsed8g04.pdf nine pages ).

I responded with my witness statement (http://www.box.net/shared/static/et6oo7tc80.pdf five pages)

Having arrived late for the first hearing, Jones filed a second witness statement (http://www.box.net/shared/static/t6kb1feec8.pdf fourteen pages) together with a Second Exhibit (http://www.box.net/shared/static/cfy7ymmg4k.pdf twenty nine pages)

I had already filed my skeleton argument (http://www.box.net/shared/static/6oudgp9ck0.pdf six pages).

Just a few days before yesterday's hearing Jones advised he was to be legally represented and his Counsel's skeleton argument was served on me after 5.00pm on Friday. (http://www.box.net/shared/static/e20r2f00ss.pdf twelve pages)

At the first hearing the Judge ordered that a preliminary point of whether a statutory demand could be signed by an attorney be argued. (http://www.box.net/shared/static/4y9z6rxkfd.pdf One page )

The Judge at this hearing concluded that there was an even more preliminary point as to whether I could represent the company at the hearing in any event.

After hearing argument from both myself and Counsel for Jones, the Judge ruled that my Power of Attorney did not afford me the right to represent the company at Trial (Civil Procedure Rule 39.6 http://www.justice.gov.uk/civil/procrules_fin/contents/practice_directions/pd_part39.htm).

I asked for Leave to Appeal but it was denied.

The Judge therefore ruled the hearing must proceed with Think unrepresented.


After hearing from Counsel for Jones, the Judge ruled that Jones' arguments that the Demand was a nullity were not accepted and that my Power of Attorney continues in force and could be used for signing the Statutory Demand.

He proceeded to hear the other grounds for setting aside the Statutory Demand.

Counsel for Jones claimed:

1. The debt is disputed.
2. Jones had previously asserted, and Think knew about that, a counter claim for £264,462 plus interest and costs for breach of contract in 2002 (http://www.box.net/shared/static/hypzjoygw8.pdf seven pages )
3. The Demand should be set aside on other grounds.


Having heard nothing from Think, the Judge agreed with Counsel's submissions and ordered that the Statutory Demand be set aside.

Counsel then asked for a costs order which the Judge made against Think in the amount of £3,917.45. The Judge refused Jones request for his own costs including attendance at the first hearing.

Counsel for Jones sought an order of the Court that I be joined to the application - in the matter of costs only - and that I be held personally liable for Think's costs on a joint and several basis.

That matter has been adjourned as it is necessary to serve the order on me and give me time to prepare, not least as I hadn't been heard in the proceedings.



Whereto now?

The application to set aside was not a hearing on the merits.

It is now necessary for Think to issue a claim in either the County or High Court if the matter is to be pursued.

Jones, his solicitors and Counsel have, in my judgment, completely misunderstood the nature of the s110 process.

It does not in law assign any liabilities to the new company other than by way of indemnity against the liabilities of the old company as shown in the wording of the agreement (http://www.box.net/shared/static/d00dcb3ypl.pdf fifteen pages).

That is the ground upon which I have refused to accept the indemnity of the loan note holder obligations because the indemnity was obtained by fraud and upon a false declaration of solvency.

Jones on the other hand, by his then solicitors, did assert a claim at the time as shown in his exhibits, and put everyone on notice that he expected it to be met by the new company. The directors assessed that there was no liability and excluded it from the declaration of solvency. A position that is I believe correct and was reasonable at the time.

The case therefore comes down to (1) can Think recover the £40k that is clearly the proceeds of crime and which was assigned to it by the s110 agreement (2) can Jones assert that Think has no rights because he has a claim for offset against Newscreen which makes any asset assigned to Think of no value.

I say that the law is that there can be no right of offset for claims to money arising from the proceeds of crime, they must be returned in any event.

Jones says the £40k was a legitimate payment and that he has a claim against Newscreen that Think should pay directly.

Going to be an interesting and precedent setting legal case.

Slough County Court ref: SD24 of 2007

This blog is presently being updated. It is viewable by all.

It will have links to downloads for all documents in pdf format.

You are able to instruct the Google/Blogspot servers to send you an email whenever any post is updated.