Good news and (not so) bad news… I'll start with the latter
Three hours court hearing on Tuesday 16 May, me versus expensive barrister Tim Walker representing 1st Defendant Russell Keith Ambrose t/a Optimax Unltd and 2nd Defendant Optimax Clinics Ltd.
Regardless of the disappointing outcome Deputy District Judge Lynd was very fair, because - in my (extensive) experience - all judges are not fair!
They have the same human frailties as the rest of us, and some blatantly dislike litigants in person (LiPs) as if it’s below their pay grade to deal with a person not legally qualified. Whereas others, like DDJ Lynd, are extremely helpful and patient with LiPs. (Although it must be said that given the number of cases I’ve been involved in, both my own and others, I probably deserve to pass Law 101)
Due to the number of listed cases ours was delayed until 12.30pm, but at its outset DDJ Lynd raised my hopes when he totally agreed with my interpretation of ‘unlimited treatment’, as included in my Settlement Agreement (SA) signed by Russell Ambrose in 2012.
However, he dismissed my claim against 1st Defendant Russell Keith Ambrose t/a Optimax Unltd because, no matter that Russell told me pre signing the SA that as a sole trader he was personally responsible (recorded), the weasel is actually protected by some company rule that I still don’t really understand.
Although the Judge did later tell me that if Optimax went into administration I could go after Russell personally - I live in hope!
As our legal battle continued, Tim Walker introduced two lengthy documents, previous rulings in the Supreme Court and House of Lords re contractual interpretation.
(i) Investors Compensation Scheme v West Bromwich 1998 (ii) Arnold v Britton 2015
Tim quoted page after page until I was almost asleep with boredom… unfortunately these cases supported the Defendant's interpretation of ‘unlimited’, far too complicated for me to explain in detail, but concerning the wording being interpreted in a commercial construct. As LiP I certainly didn’t have immediate access to any contradictory rulings - but the games are not over yet!
The battle raged on… counsel for the Defendant frustrated with my repeated claim that when I signed the agreement I did so on the understanding of the English Oxford dictionary definition of ‘unlimited’!
I also explained in detail to the Judge that I have numerous recordings of my meetings with Russell that contradicted counsel’s claims.
At one point (can’t remember what I said) the Judge asked me if I was arguing with him, to which of course I replied appropriately, ‘
No sir, just saying…'
Tim Walker claimed that Russell signed the agreement on the basis that ‘unlimited treatment’ did not include the provision of glasses.
Hmmm… strange then that he previously didn’t dispute this until he realised that I'd got the better of him, when I told him that I'd recorded all our meetings, during which Russell said a lot of things I guarantee he now wishes he hadn’t!
I told DDJ Lynd this and more, and provided him with emails supporting what I said, and providing evidence that Russell had lied to me from the minute I first met him on Friday 13 May 2011.
The Judge said he appreciated why Russell and I are at odds, but it wasn’t relevant to the case in hand.
Tim Walker went on to argue that bifocal diving goggles are a leisure item and not needed as a result of my damaging laser eye surgery.
The bifocal ‘diving' goggles (for swimming) are entirely necessary because the sensitivity of my damaged eyes is so bad that if I get sea water or chlorine splashed in them then I’m unable to open them until the pain subsides - and risk infection!
As I pointed out to the Judge, then why did Russell pay for my ski goggles last year without argument - which could also be considered a ‘leisure item’ according to the Defendant - needed to protect my mega sensitive eyes from the dust and sand etc, causing pain and severe MGD when travelling in India? (see Facebook photos December 2015)
And bifocals because I can no longer see at ANY distance without prescription lenses, and cannot risk further breakages to my body as a result - more on that another day!
I accept that Russell finally scored a goal, but the good news is that while it cost me just £310 to issue and present my claim (and a lot of hard work), a legal expert advised me that Russell’s costs would have been in the region of £10-12,000 to defend it!
I didn’t realise that barristers get paid for the whole day, not just by the hour, and as Tim Walker is a Grade A senior counsel his fee for the hearing alone was approx £5,000.
On top of this are Barker Gillette LLP lawyer Qaiser Khanzada’s fees, plus cost of the lovely paralegal Carly Aitchison to attend court in his place - Qaiser disappointingly had another hearing so was unavailable.
For me this was a test case re the word ‘unlimited', and the Defendant has played his ace card without me needing to spend many thousands of pounds challenging the agreement for him to show it, which was always my intention, as Qaiser knew!
I have now spoken with a senior barrister experienced in contract law aand asked him to look at the Defendant’s argument re ‘unlimited', and - more importantly - to look at the evidence I now have thanks to my second SAR proving that I was not told the truth before signing the SA, but was in fact lied to from day one!
Not only do I have letters and emails from Russell and Optimax staff to prove this, but numerous recordings too!
Tired now, so will publish the 'good news’ during the weekend.