High Court Shafts Victorious Blogger For £22k

The Media and Communications Court - part of the High Court in London - is the playground of millionaires, celebs, Russian oligarchs and the like. Huge sums are spent on spats like the ongoing "Wagatha Christie" case between two footballers' wives.

I have had two experiences of this Court as people have tried to close this blog down and destroy me financially. It is my honest preception that the Judges there find my attempts to expose the major corruption, cronyism and incompetence at bent Labour Sandwell Council distasteful - certainly they abhor the style of my journalism. Unfortunately, for the wo/man on the street (or aboard the Clapham omnibus as lawyers say) the Court has a neat way of punishing even the victorious - disallow the costs of top lawyers for ordinary scum like me. Skew the roulette wheel so that the Establishment ALWAYS wins.

Earlier this year Lisa McNally, bent Sandwell's Director of Public Health. sued me for alleged harassment and data breach (the latter, unbelievably, for comments about stuff she herself had put on Twitter!). She self-describes suffering from serious mental health problems and, firstly, claimed that I was somehow mocking her mental health issues - which was always untrue. Secondly, she took umbrage when I pointed out that although the mainstream press call her "Dr" McNally when she is pronouncing on medical matters, "Dr" in her case is an academic title and she is not, not ever has been, a medical doctor (GMC-registered). Because this was true she couldn't sue me for defamation and so, with her co-conspirators at bent Sandwell (including Stevens, Tour and Crompton), cooked-up the ridiculous "harassment" charge. The unlawful use of taxpayers' money to support this conspiracy was even more bizarre as the case related to McNally's PERSONAL Twitter account.

This malicious woman sought an injunction, backed with a penal order, in the mosts draconian terms including that I did not go within 50 metres of her. In other words, if she got her Order she could seek to have me imprisoned if I went anywhere near her. As I have NEVER been near her or met her this was totally absurd.

McNally brought the case in her own name. But even though she earns in excess of £105,000 per annum (plus contributions to a gold-plated pension) she conspired with the top brass at bent Sandwell (who have spent YEARS trying to destroy me and this blog) and they agreed with Cllr Maria Crompton to unlawfully fund her ridiculous case with taxpayers' money.

In civil cases there is usually what is called a "protocol" process which is intended to encourage settlement of cases before they get to the issue of court proceedings. A team of lawyers at bent Sandwell including four solicitors, Surjit Tour, Maria Price, Julia Lynch and Vanessa Maher-Smith seemingly egged her-on, bolstered by the unlawful taxpayer-funding. It was quite obvious during the aggressive attitude towards me when I was desperately trying to sort out a lawyer that the Lynch mob had no intention of settling the matter without my total surrender. At a time when I was unrepresented, Lynch tried to force me to sign a "consent order" wherein I effectively admitted my guilt!

Lynch then served a 529-page bundle of papers on me (but missed a key document relevant to my defence) packed full of deeply prejudicial material going back years - and long before McNally was even employed at the Council. (Even more documents were to follow.) This was intended to swamp me with legal costs from the outset and force me to capitulate.

Lynch refused a protocol time extension when she was aware that I was close to securing legal representation and issued court proceedings (although she forgot to serve the emergency injunction application backed with the penal notice!)

Via an organisation, a top media lawyer in London looked at the papers and offered to act as he considered McNally's case to be hopeless. In the meantime, I had been speaking with the exceptional Mark Lewis of Patron Law and - by a matter of minutes - agreed terms with him before the other offer came in.

Mark is a force of nature. He is a top media lawyer working in high-profile cases. The first thing he did was give ME an almighty bollocking for even trying to agree terms with Lynch. But he was an absolute rock at a time of incredible stress and his team (Megan and Johnnie) also provided splendid support. Alas, lawyers of this quality do not come cheap (although Mark tried to help me - particularly in respect of the initial costs).

Mark Lewis is an incredible tactician and set about Lynch and "team" (they soon started complaining that HE was being aggressive at a time when THEY were trying to seek my eventual loss of liberty!).

Money was no object to the malevolent McNally as she wasn't paying for her own case and so she greedily added-in a claim for £10,000 damages for herself at the last minute. And only the "best" - or so she thought - as she was screwing us taxpayers, and she used a QC Aileen McColgan all the way. Thus she claimed:

1. An emergency injunction with penal notice;
2. Damages of £10,000;
3. A "permanent" injunction.
4. Costs (EVEN THOUGH SHE HAD NO COSTS LIABILTY AS SHE WAS SCREWING THE TAXPAYER TO PAY FOR HER!)

Mark fired a withering salvo at Lynch and instructed a top media barrister, Richard Munden (5RB Chambers), to represent me at the forthcoming hearing of the risible emergency injunction application. On his preliminary view, Richard opined that my journalism was protected by rules of free speech and that, in any event, my comments did not amount to harassment either "quantitavely or qualitatively". Even on a quick view he thought McNally's case was hopeless. Once again though, a top-lawyer like Richard (who frequently acts for millionaire celebs) does not come cheap.

Just before the emergency injunction hearing, McNally dropped this part of the claim but decided to fight on to try and get some money for herself and to get a "permanent" injunction.

Mark and Richard (rightly) thought from the off that she had no chance and applied to strike out her claim as having no real prospects of success. For non-lawyers, this is not quite as straightforward as it sounds since, for the purpose of the application only, the Judge has to accept that what McNally was saying was the truth (although we put in considerable evidence to the effect that most of it was not).

Another hearing was listed in London. Just beforehand, McNally dropped her ludicrous data protection claim. Richard Munden (great guy) was absolutely superb - both in his preparation and on the day. The decision was reserved and, unfortunately, there was no time to discuss the issue of costs which, with the benefit of hindsight, was unfortunate, to say the least.

The case was duly struck out. Just think about that for a minute. McNally herself withdrew her ridiculous emergency injunction application and the data breach claim when it was absolutely clear she has NO prospects of success. Then she suffered a humiliating defeat when the Judge decided he would not even allow her to proceed with her case. That is as comprehensive a victory as it was possible to get in these circumstances. But I have ended up out of pocket to the tune of £22,384.12p when the Judge decided that scum like me was not entitled to recover the full costs of using a top-class, though expensive, legal team - even when Sandwell had a whole team of solicitors and a QC on the case! Read on below the panel ...

***********************************************************************************

This has been a major financial hit for me and even given the generosity of Skidder readers I cannot recover that sort of loss. But I am not giving up in the face of this sort of intimidation. You good folk can help me keep the blog going with a small donation. 

Please use the "donate" button on the side panel of this post. If you are reading via a mobile you need to click through to the "webpage" to find the "donate" button. 

I know some folk prefer to send cheques. These too gratefully received payable to "J P Saunders" at 11 Chelworth Road, Birmingham B38 0BG

***********************************************************************************

The Judge had to decide the issue of costs via written submissions. What is not clear is whether he realised that bent Sandwell were unlawfully using taxpayers money to fund the highly-paid McNally rather than just providing "support". Did he think she was picking-up the tab personally and go easier on her? Or was he trying to save taxpayer money - which he seemimgly didn't realise was being used unlawfully - at MY expense? We just don't know.

Unfortunately Aileen McColgan QC wrote a highly misleading email to the Court. Richard Munden put in his fees - which were on the high-side but reflected his mastery of the subject and the excellence of his presentation. Given her performance on the papers and in Court, McColgan had nothing to be proud of, but boasted to the Judge about her "Leading Counsel" status and that she had only charged £10k for the hearing. In effect she was saying that Richard - who is not a QC (yet!) - should get less irrespective of his far superior performance throughout. But what McColgan failed to tell the Court was that she was receiving plenty of taxpayers' loot via the bent Council before the hearing, and so her total fee was not £10k but, er, £40.717.50 plus VAT!

Richard Munden pointed out to the Court the vicious nature of McNally's claim:

"The relief sought in the claim was of great importance to the Defendant, a private individual. The Claimant, supported throughout by the Council (who have for years been trying to close the Defendant's blog) sought not only damages, interest and costs (which would have been very substantial had the matter continued), but also a wide-ranging injunction... the breach of which could have seen him imprisoned for five years.

"The matter was complex and specialised, being a claim in the Media and Communications List of the High Court raising particular freedom of expression issues. (And he pointed out that McNally had "chosen" to use Leading Counsel throughout.)

"The matter was also very important for the Defendant's reputation. If he had been found to have unlawfully harassed the Claimant, in addition to the financial and injunctive consequences, that would have been highly damaging to his reputation and would likely have made it very difficult for him to continue his journalism. The freedom of expression element in respect of bloggers (especially on political matters) raised issues of public importance.

"In the circumstances he was entitled to use specialist Media solicitors and counsel …"

The Judge considered that for the purposes of a strike out application it had been unnecessary to put in detailed evidence to rebut the hundreds of pages of irrelevant and highly prejudicial material McNally chucked in! One rule for one ...

And bent Sandwell's costs - over £100,000 - were still higher than mine in total but I still lost out when the Judge reduced MY recoverable costs.

And so the Judge ordered McNally - i.e. YOU the taxpayer - to only pay £49,747.20 despite being told that I had had to sell remaining equity in my home to fight off the malicious claim. This has left me out of pocket, despite defeating EVERY aspect of the case, in the above-mentioned sum of £22,284.12. This is what the British Establishment do to people who get a bit uppity. They talk about rights whilst shafting you up the derriere. This is British civil justice folks if you are an ordinary Jill or Joe - you win, but you still pay! British civil courts are only open to the rich.

In an extraordinary attempt to influence the Court, McNally had claimed that she would have to resign her job (!) if she didn't get her injunction but she continues in her highly-paid post having left you taxpayers with a bill in excess of £100,000 (including the costs of Sandwell's solicitors and McColgan) for matters relating to her personal Twitter account. Time Sandwell started clawing the costs back from her pay eh readers?

THE SANDWELL SKIDDER - COMMUNITY NEWS - READ THE SKIDDER, KIDDER!

**** Phone No: 07470 624207 ****

Email: thesandwellskidder@gmail.com

Facebook: Julian Saunders  

Facebook Group: The Sandwell Skidder - Speaking Truth To Power!

Twitter: Publisher: @CrowMultimedia; Julian Saunders: @SandwellSkidder            

Post:  Jules Saunders, 11 Chelworth Road, Birmingham B38 0BG

PROUD TO HAVE BEEN TROLLED BY DICKHEAD DARREN COOPER DECEASED!

LEGAL NOTICE (Version 3 from 14th February, 2021)

I cannot list every previous mention of individuals referred to in the entirety of this blog. Where I refer to a specific story please follow the supplied hyperlink since this forms legal justification for later comments. Similarly references to “posts passim” and to earlier posts mean any individuals concerned about purported defamatory or otherwise unlawful material must read later posts in the context of earlier posts. Full information can also be supplied within a reasonable time upon application via email to thesandwellskidder@gmail.com

In most cases we try to give the subjects of these blog posts the opportunity to comment on our journalism pre-publication to ensure the accuracy of our work.

Every now and again we make a genuine honest error and get something wrong. If an error in the blog affects you please email thesandwellskidder@gmail.com and we shall use our best endeavours to publish appropriate corrections forthwith.

We have had to remove the direct comment facility from this blog due to the activity of a West Bromwich woman but we are pleased to receive comments via email to thesandwellskidder@gmail.com , on Twitter via our publishers @CrowMultimedia or via our dedicated Facebook Group: “The Sandwell Skidder - Speaking Truth to Power!” We are happy to publish any sensible commentary and offer a right of reply where applicable.

If you consider that anything written is defamatory or otherwise unlawful please email thesandwellskidder@gmail.com or telephone 07470 624207 forthwith. If your complaint has merit we shall endeavour to make immediate amends.