About us

My photo
Members & staff of UKIP past & present. Committed to reforming the party by exposing the corruption and dishonesty that lies at its heart, in the hope of making it fit for purpose. Only by removing Nigel Farage and his sycophants on the NEC can we save UKIP from electoral oblivion. SEE: http://juniusonukip.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/a-statement-re-junius.html

Friday, 26 March 2010

UKIP: Mark Croucher/UKIP and the Court Judgement against them

We have already published some of the facts behind the Croucher/Nuttall/UKIP attempt to bankrupt Greg Lance-Watkins and thus silence his blog. See: LINK & LINK

That Croucher or Nuttall were too cowardly to attend the court is an established fact.

That this was a UKIP action is also an established fact. The odious Paul 'Benito' Nuttall had provided evidence to support Croucher's copyright ownership of the photos in question. This was done in his capacity as UKIP Chairman.

That the Junius Team is still celebrating Croucher's humiliating defeat is also an established fact.

The Mark 'Friar Tuck' Croucher is putting on weight and has lost even more hair due to stress is also an established fact. But where is UKIP's leadership when you need them for support? The poor little lad!

His copyright case against the BNP is also pending. At this rate Croucher will be bankrupt within weeks.

We are now pleased to publish the judgement against Croucher/ UKIP in full:

Note of Judgment

His Honour Judge W Gaskell stated that this was an application by the defendant to strike out the claim. He stated that today was the trial date and that the claimant was not in attendance.

The first question which the Judge had to address was whether he could be confident that the claimant was aware of the hearing date.

He stated that the matter had previously been listed for trial on 27th January 2010. This had been vacated and directions were given, including a new trial window. Notice was given on 15th February 2010 stating that the trial had been listed on 18th March 2010.

The Judge had also heard that the defendant’s solicitor had spoken to the claimant the previous Friday and mention was made of today's hearing date during the call. The Judge stated that an email had also been sent to the claimant setting out the various matters which needed to be resolved prior to the trial.

That email was in the bundle at page 139 and carried the date 15th March 2010.

The Judge had also heard evidence that the claimant was currently active on the internet and clearly there was an overwhelming likelihood that he had access to his emails.

The Judge then set out the background to the claim. He stated that the claimant alleged that monies were due to him in respect of the use of 3 photographs used by the defendant on his internet blog.

The 3 photos were of head and shoulders of UKIP members (IJ later corrected the fact that one of the photos was a full body photograph of Nigel Ferrage).

The first issue was whether the claimant was the owner of the copyright and the photographs. The Judge noted that Mr Croucher would have to overcome the fact that it seemed that the photographs had been taken by him in his capacity as an employee or at least as an agent employed by UKIP.

The Judge then turned to the issue of quantum. If the claimant managed to overcome the issue of appropriate ownership the issue of quantum arises. The Judge noted that the claimant claims £8,000. On the material provided to the Judge, and he noted that he had not heard evidence from the claimant, he stated that it appeared to be grossly excessive.

The Judge referred to the freelance fee guides and specifically to the online prices. The Judge noted that newspapers charge £625 for one year's use and that business use was £850 for one year.

However, he noted that the use in question was by a not for profit website and stated that he was entitled on the basis of the material before him to conclude that it was highly unlikely that the claimant would achieve anything near that which he claimed. However, the Judge noted that those issues could be put to one side for the moment.

The Judge stated that the fact was that the . claimant had failed to file a pre trial checklist and the filing fee. He had also failed to pay the hearing fee. In accordance with the previous order made on 24th February 2010, the claim should be struck out due to this.

The claimant had now failed to attend Court also.

The Judge stated that he was wholly satisfied that the claimant was aware of proceedings and had failed to take necessary steps in proceedings. He had also failed to attend Court. Had he attended Court and paid the money the Court would have heard the claimant's claim.

The Judge stated that taking in to consideration the claimant's breach of procedural requirements and his failure to attend Court and the difficulties he faced in relation to proving liability and quantum, it seemed appropriate to strike out the claim. The Judge therefore struck out the claim.

Having heard submissions by the defendant’s counsel on costs, the Judge ordered the claimant to pay the defendant's costs assessed at £8,448.50 within 28 days.

Rhodri Jones (Solicitor),
Messrs. Hugh James Solicitors,

Also see: LINK

1 comment:

evision said...

i have gone through this blog. nowadays im working from my home as a online businessman. and the above blog is really helpful.

online business