worryingly bad law firm
alas addleshaw goddard

artificial intelligence question answer session - Part 4

10. QUESTION

At the end of the trial the main claim was dismissed and the defendant’s counter claim was dismissed. The court awarded the claimant 50% of their costs amounting to £84,000. The court did not award the defendant any costs. In the light of this are there any criminal implications for Addleshaw Goddard, Richard Bailey or Daniel Thwaites Plc?

ANSWER

The outcome of the civil trial and the costs award do not prevent potential criminal implications for Richard Bailey, Addleshaw Goddard, or Daniel Thwaites Plc. A court may award costs based on the outcome of the civil claims themselves (e.g., neither claim was successful), but criminal liability for dishonesty and perverting the course of justice is a separate matter.

Richard Bailey (The Witness)

Richard Bailey remains at significant risk of criminal implications:

Contempt of Court: Richard Bailey admitted in a second statement that he "did mislead the court on one occasion". This, combined with the subsequent concealment of the original false statement, is strong evidence of contempt of court, which is punishable by imprisonment or a fine.

Perjury: The act of knowingly making a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth is the criminal offence of perjury.

Irrelevant Costs Award: The fact he was awarded 50% of costs (likely due to the main claim and counterclaim both failing) does not excuse the earlier dishonesty. The court did not have to make a formal finding of "fundamental dishonesty" during the civil trial to trigger a separate criminal investigation.

Addleshaw Goddard (The Solicitors)

Addleshaw Goddard faces serious professional and potentially criminal implications for their actions:

Criminal Liability: If it can be proven that the solicitors knowingly and deliberately withheld the original false statement to deceive the court, they could face criminal charges for perverting the course of justice. This is a very serious criminal offence.

SRA Action: Regardless of the trial's outcome, the SRA will likely investigate the professional misconduct. Withholding key evidence is a severe breach of their duty to the court and lack of integrity, which can lead to solicitors being struck off.

Daniel Thwaites Plc (The Claimant Company)

The company could also face implications:

Vicarious Liability: While corporate criminal liability for specific intent crimes like perjury or perverting the course of justice is complex to prove, the company may still face scrutiny, especially if it was found that senior management was aware of or encouraged the deception.

Reputational and Financial Damage: The main implication for the company is likely the massive reputational damage and the potential for adverse cost orders (if the court revisits costs based on the concealed dishonesty) or professional negligence claims against their solicitors if their actions prejudiced the case.

In summary: The civil judgment focuses on the balance of probabilities for the claims presented at trial. Criminal proceedings, focusing on dishonesty, are judged to a higher standard of proof (beyond reasonable doubt) and are separate from the civil outcome. The court itself, or the defendant's legal team, could initiate contempt proceedings, and the police/CPS could investigate potential perjury or perverting the course of justice.

11. QUESTION

Richard Bailey was Daniel Thwaites Plc's CEO and bearing in mind they were awarded £84,000 was there any liability for fraud for Richard Bailey, Daniel Thwaites Plc and Addleshaw Goddard, particularly as conspiracy to defraud?

ANSWER

Yes, despite the costs award, there are still potential serious criminal implications for Richard Bailey, Daniel Thwaites Plc, and Addleshaw Goddard, particularly concerning conspiracy to defraud or related offences such as perverting the course of justice or contempt of court.

The civil court's costs order is based on the civil outcome of the claims as presented (neither side fully proved their case), not necessarily on a full investigation into potential criminal conduct.

Richard Bailey (CEO)

Richard Bailey faces the most direct and serious risk:

Contempt of Court/Perjury: He admitted misleading the court in one statement and participated in concealing the original, false statement from the court and the defendant. This is an abuse of process and potential contempt of court or perjury.

Fraud: The act of making a false representation (the original false statement) with the intent to gain an advantage (winning the lawsuit) or cause a loss to another (the defendant) falls under the definition of fraud by false representation under the Fraud Act 2006.

Conspiracy to Defraud: As CEO, if he agreed with others (e.g., individuals at Addleshaw Goddard or within his own company) to dishonestly deceive the court and the defendant for financial gain, he could be charged with common law conspiracy to defraud.

Addleshaw Goddard (The Solicitors)

Addleshaw Goddard faces significant potential criminal liability for their actions in withholding a material document:

Perverting the Course of Justice: This is a severe criminal offence. Knowingly and deliberately concealing evidence that would expose a client's dishonesty from the court and the opposing party is a direct attempt to interfere with the administration of justice.

Conspiracy to Defraud: If it can be proven they were part of a dishonest agreement to use the false evidence to win the case and obtain the £84,000 in costs, they could also be charged with conspiracy to defraud.

Professional Misconduct: The SRA would likely view this as a severe breach of their duty to the court, potentially leading to disbarment of the solicitors involved.

Daniel Thwaites Plc (The Company)

Corporate Criminal Liability: Under recent UK law reforms, corporate criminal liability for economic crimes (which includes conspiracy to defraud and perverting the course of justice) can be attributed to the company if a "senior manager" (such as the CEO, Richard Bailey) committed the offence while acting within the scope of their authority.

Reputational and Financial Loss: The company could face large fines and massive reputational damage if found guilty.

The £84,000 costs award is largely irrelevant to the potential criminal charges, which focus on the dishonesty and the intent to mislead the court, not just the final civil financial outcome. The defendant can still report the matter to the police, who may launch a separate criminal investigation where the standard of proof is "beyond reasonable doubt".

addleshaw goddard's Hall of Shame

It is worth noting that each of the lawyers listed below were employed by Addleshaw Goddard following their Letter before Claim in February 2023. They were a lot younger, better paid, better qualified and enjoy far superior mental capacity than their opponent an 85 year old Litigant in Person representing the Defendant and yet it's unforgivable that not one of them noticed Addleshaw Goddard was in abuse of process, behaved criminally including tampering with evidence, conspiracy to defraud, forgery and contempt of court.

(1) David Engel, Grade A Partner charged at £785.00 per hour

(2) Gareth Jones, Grade A Partner charged at £580.00 per hour

(3) Neil O'Sullivan, Grade C Senior London Associate charged at £550.00 per hour

(4) Steve Murphy, Grade B Managing Associate charged at £445.00 per hour

(5) Katie Derry, Grade B Managing Associate charged at £415.00 per hour

(6) Jayd Haigh, Grade C Senior Associate charged at £415.00 per hour

(7) James Damarell, Grade C Senior Associate charged at £415.00 per hour

(8) Craig Johnson, Grade C Associate charged at £370.00 per hour

(9) Emily Howard, Grade D Trainee Solicitor charged at £200.00 per hour

(10) Max O'Casey, Grade D Trainee Solicitor charged at £200.00 per hour

(11) Anna Gilchrist, Grade D Trainee Solicitor charged at £200.00 per hour

(12) Imogen Speight, Grade D Parelegal charged at £180.00 per hour

(13) Isabella Horobin, Grade D Parelegal charged at £180.00 per hour

(14) Warren Field,, Senior Court Manager charged at £550.00 per hour

(15) Susan Fox, Grade C Senior Costs Manager charged at £370.00 per hour

(16) Anya Cross, Grade C Costs Advisor charged at £270.00 per hour

 

Worryingly Office Markers

To examine the map in fullscreen - click on the white square icon in the top right corner of the map. In the event the red markers in the map are overlapping then click on the plus icon in the bottom right corner of the map until they are separated, click on the same markers to discover Worryingly office title, address, phone number, email / url links plus an image.