Page 278 - Bundle for MF Final
P. 278

Bates no   277


                                                    2
               16 June 2020
               MA/JLW/116416/1




                      hearing  which  was  attached  to  her  position  statement.  Your  client  is
                      aware of this and that it was discussed with her then solicitor,  Thomas
                      Burton-Wills  of Grosvenor Law.  A  cursory  look at their file  will bear
                      this out and we are very surprised that you have not done so. We liaised
                      with the  Court  and eventually the  correct  Order  was  issued.  This  was
                      served  directly  on  your  client  on  I I  th   October  2019.  To  be  clear, this
                      was  an  error of the  Court and not a  deliberate  act  by this  firm  or  our
                      client. It is one thing to act on your client's instructions but to raise very
                      serious. unfounded allegations as you have done is quite another.  The
                      conclusion that our client was seeking to obtain disclosure to which he
                      was not entitled and has since delayed his detailed list of documents in
                      an attempt to gain an unfair advantage is not only plainly wrong but also
                      an attempt to subvert the truth of what actually occum�d.

                   •  Neither parties position statement was in the bundle which,  as you are
                      fully aware. is common practice. The reason being that the bundle has to
                      be  lodged 2  working days prior to the hearing and position  statements
                      often aren't ready at this stage. The bundle index agreed with your client
                      (Mr Corner on her behalf) clearly stated that position statements would
                                                                                th
                      follow. These were exchanged via email with Mr Comer on 27 January
                      by which time the bundle had of course been lodged with the court and
                      the following email sent to Mr Comer:

                        "Dear Mr Comer

                       Further  to  your  email  below  I  confirm  that  ·we  can  exchange
                       electronically by  email.  I suggest we  do  this at  1 I am  so  (f you can
                       please email me your statement then and I will email you ours.

                       You  will  need  to send  a copy to the  court by email  also.  The email
                       address  is  hearings.brighton.countycourt(a)justice.gov.uk.  Please
                       ensure you quote the case number and hearing date in the subject box
                       when you email the court.  This should then make its way to the Judge
                       for the hearing tomorrow but I suggest you also take a hard copy with
                       you tomorrow as well just in case it has not made its way to the correct
                       Judge."



                       Mr Comer raised this after the hearing and accused us of altering the
                       bundle index before it was sent to the Court which obviously� we did
                       not  do,  and  we  confirmed  this.  Mr  Comer  also  emailed  our  client's
                       counsel  Mr Anderson directly about  this issue and  he confirmed that
                       the Judge had read both position statements and handed them back to
                       the respective parties at the conclusion of the hearing.


                       DDJ Robinson  was  not misdirected  in  any  way.  He had  clearly  read
                       your client's position statement and spent a significant amount of time
                       discussing the various issues with her. With respect, we consider that it
                       is not the fact that the Judge did not have sight of your client's position
                       statement  (which  clearly  he  did)  that  is  the  issue ➔  your  client  was
   273   274   275   276   277   278   279   280   281   282   283