Main Menu

Intro) Listen to Muriel Gray lie

1) Muriel Gray's High Court claim 17 Dec 09 against Geoff Widders

2) Proof of the date of Geoff Widders novel

3) Muriel Gray lied to the audience

4) Costs and Gillian Cross

5) The Ancient 2000 does not exist

6) Deception Exposed

7) "A tomorrow's chip wrapper affair "

8) Muriel Gray "one of the most insulting things"

9) "best investigative journalism in the field today "

10) Support for a lie?

11) GW Book

12) Muriel Gray's "homage"(s)

13) FantasyCon 2012

LEGAL SECTION

Intro) Summary of LEGAL SECTION

A) Letter to Lord Woolf

B) "Suffer any wrong that can be done you rather than come here"

C) Appendix 2 : Declaratory Judgment

D) Appendix 3 : Law Commission

E) Mr Justice Roth's reply. GW comments

Fi) Two Complaints to Ms Judy Anckorn, "Office for Judicial Complaints" (OJC)

Fii) Complaint to Sir John Brigstocke, "Judicial Ombudsman"

Fiii) Letter to both Ms Anckorn (OJC), and Sir John Brigstocke

G) Complaint to the "Solicitor's Regulation Authority "

H) Nichola Evans of Browne Jacobson fabricated costs

I) Chancery Division

J) Report of the Lord Neuberger Committee

K) Letter of Intent

RSS Feeds / Share

Subscribe in a reader

Read / Sample / Purchase Flight of the Shaman

Download from this site

Flight of the Shaman [pdf]

"So obviously he was a nutter."

 

4) Costs and Gillian Cross

 

Mr Justice Roth ruled in Ms Gray's favour, he then set about determining costs. Instead of answering my simple claim regarding the dates Ms Gray had employed a legal team. They had sent me their bill of costs and in my written submission to Mr Justice Roth I had already pleaded;-

"I would like to query these astronomical amounts – I would also like to draw the Court’s attention to the following CPR rules [Court Procedure Rules];-

 

CPR PART 1

THE OVERRIDING OBJECTIVE

                   1.1

(1) These Rules are a new procedural code with the overriding objective of enabling the court to deal with cases justly.

                        (2) Dealing with a case justly includes, so far as is practicable –

                        (a) ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing;

                        (c) dealing with the case in ways which are proportionate –

                        (iv) to the financial position of each party;

RULE 44.3

COURT’S DISCRETION AND CIRCUMSTANCES TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WHEN EXERCISING ITS DISCRETION AS TO COSTS

No order as to costs Each party to pay his own costs

Each party is to bear his own costs of the part of the proceedings to which the order relates whatever costs order the court makes at the end of the proceedings.

CPR PART 44

COURT’S DISCRETION AND CIRCUMSTANCES TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WHEN EXERCISING ITS DISCRETION AS TO COSTS

                         1)          The court has discretion as to –

(a) whether costs are payable by one party to another;

b)   the amount of those costs; and

                     (c)   when they are to be paid          

(5)          The conduct of the parties includes –

                              (b)   whether it was reasonable for a party to raise, pursue or contest a particular allegation or issue;

                               

I drew Mr Justice Roth's attention to the above, and added that;-

          

• I have no money but Ms Gray is a multi-millionaire, that she had lied and misled the public and, although she did not refer to me by name, she had referred to me as a "nutter."
• I said that this matter could have been resolved at the outset if Ms Gray had produced the evidence to support her statement.
• That my original claim, made in the Small Claims Court [view it here], simply asked the court to examine the dates upon which we wrote our works and to make a ruling.
• I also pointed out that the courts themselves had led me to believe that I should continue with my claim, that His Honour Judge Reid QC had spoken in favour of my claim.

                       

I asked Mr Justice Roth to take all the above into account.

Mr Justice Roth said, "Ms Gray has been put to considerable expense in defending herself" against my claim. He said that the costs would have to be paid.

Mr Justice Roth did repeatedly ask the legal team to explain why it had taken six hours to prepare a folder of documents - there was no satisfactory explanation. [Six hours at £275 per hour + VAT = £1,938.75]

In answer to Mr Justice Roth's question regarding the legal teams cost assessment regarding, "Attendance on others" the "Solicitor for the Supreme Court" replied that those costs related to "Gillian Cross." Mr Justice Roth said that there had not been any need to incur such a cost. [Ms Evans charged a total of £1,077.50 here]

[Gillian Cross is the children's author. She informed me on 31 July 2007 that she does not know Muriel Gray and has never communicated with her].

The fact that the "Solicitor of the Supreme Court" was unable to provide answers to the judges repeated questions regarding their inflated costs caused the barrister to have to make the suggestion to the judge that he, "apply a broad brush stroke" to their costs. Mr Justice Roth reduced the astronomic costs by a fraction - they were still astronomic.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

 

 

top

My undertaking If there is anything that I have stated on this site that is not correct; if Muriel Gray, Harper Collins, Browne Jacobson, or any person(s) mentioned in these pages, contacts me and provides the evidence or counter argument to show that I am not correct, or... if there is anything that I have stated that anybody believes misrepresents them in any way, if they provide me with their arguments... then, if necessary, I will consider removing the material, and/or publish a correction, and/or apologise. If I do not hear anything (nobody has complained to me since I set up this site in March 2010) then I can only assume the accuracy of everything on this site, and that nobody has been misrepresented in any way. G Widders