LEGALLY REPRESENTED OR LEGALLY AIDED AND ABETTED? --- YOU DECIDE.
In a building dispute, Dennis Bottomley lied when he told his legal executive, Nicholas P Luty of Lumb and Kenningham, solicitors, that he had supplied materials towards the works that he had not been credited for, and he also lied when he claimed that there were many defects to the works.
On Bottomleys word only, and without checking the veracity of these claims, Luty got Bottomley and his wife Shirley, their separate legal aid certificates.
Later, a surveyor, Paul S Withey, aided and abetted Bottomleys deceptions by compiling an ‘expert’ report wherein he itemised and put values to the materials that Bottomley claimed to having supplied, without seeing a single invoice for any of the materials.
Additional to this, he sought to pervert the course of justice and gain Bottomley a pecuniary (financial) advantage by untruthfully claiming that there were many defects to the works, these alleged defects being the basis of a fabricated counterclaim that, if true, would have more than offset the monies that Bottomley owed myself.
At trial Bottomleys barrister, John Walford, eventually conceded that his client had supplied nothing towards the works. Also, judge Arthur Hutchinson QC, had little choice but to reject the surveyors evidence, which he did with “ ---regret and no small measure of embarrassment.”
The judge then sought to excuse the surveyors wrongdoing by stating that he felt that he had been trying to give his clients “value for money“.
So there you have it. The claims that had got the Bottomleys their legal aid certificates (Costing the public purse £32,000 to evade a debt of just £6,173) were proven to be false.
However, all was not yet lost for the Bottomleys.
Wilfred Lee, a last minute ‘Surprise witness‘, who had made no written statement of what his evidence was to be, and who claimed to have been Bottomleys lifelong friend, gave evidence that he had been present in a pub five years earlier when he had overheard me tell Bottomley that I would do the work at no cost to him and that I would make it into a ‘showpiece’.
So that’s alright then! Judge Arthur Hutchinson was impressed by this man and thought that he was definitely not lying and he ruled in Bottomleys favour on his evidence.
Strange thing was that Wilfred Lee could remember his briefing re. the alleged conversation and he could remember the name of the pub, but, he could not remember its location!!!
Another victory for the crooks. How’s that for British Justice at its Best!!!! ----- Or Worst????
