Page 283 - Bundle for MF Final

Bates no 282

3
16 June 2020
MA/JLW/116416/1

unhappy with the outcome of the hearing as Mr Comer's stated in an
email following the hearing, "Louise and I were alarmed that the
Judge seemed not to understand her case". This is of course not
something that we agree with. DDJ Robinson has been sitting as a
Judge for over 20 years (including being the resident District Judge in
Eastbourne for much of that time) and clearly understood the case
before him.

• Your client was not denied the tight of any person acting as a McKenzie
friend. Paragraph 25 of our client's position statement for the hearing on
th
28 January states ''The Claimant does not object to the appointment qf
a McKi·nzie .friend to assist the first Defendant. He is not attempting to
secure a tactical advantage or to exploit an inequality of arms. His
objection is to the appointment of her father". The specific reasons for
objecting to the appointment of Mr Comer are detailed within the
position statement. Your client could have chosen someone else to assist
her.

th
• As was made clear in our email of 24 March, a 3-week extension was
suggested due to Covid-19 and the uncertainty at the time. Your client's
interpretation that this was an attempt by our client to obtain her list of
documents without releasing his is misconceived. You will obviously
have informed your client that you would not release her list unless it is
by way of mutual exchange.

o As set out previously, our client has complied with his duty of
disclosure, the source of the funds is not relevant in any way whatsoever
to his claim.

Order of DDJ Robinson

We do not consider that the DDJ made plain his disfavour of the procedure for
McKenzie friends, however he did not agree to appoint Mr Comer. The DDJ
rejected the applications made by your client because he considered them to be
unnecessary or irrelevant to the case.

The Pleaded Case

Your client's case as pleaded in her defence makes no reference to the source of
funds being relevant or any attempt by our client to dissociate himself from the
funds. The source of funds is not an issue before the Court nor is it relevant.
Our client is and never has been investigated for fraudulent activity as a result
of his compensation payouts. The suggestion that the longer this litigation
progresses the more it is likely to attract attention from the Insurance Fraud
Enforcement Department, we consider to be a threat intended to intimidate our
client which is clearly inappropriate.