Embedded Files
From: Mira Makar <mira.makar@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Proper Purpose form - Triad Group
Date: 9 January 2019 at 16:07:21 GMT
To: "Roper, Stuart" <Stuart.Roper@equiniti.com>
Stuart
I am getting on with it: re giving flesh to the reason I want it, as requested, there is an attachment supporting the explanation.
Here in advance of the form are the key points plus the attachment so you can give Chris Atwood, as he is probably having to generate the register at 13 December 2016 as input to the "inflated" register at 7 December 2018 (record date for dividend).
Of course he cannot tell Triad who to pay what, but he can give an account, and leave it to them to decide, rather than simply taking what is on the computer, "as though" he were making the judgments himself. That would make him a shadow director, which would not thrill him (or investors).
This is the fact that investors have a "chat room" and they have spotted the following, eliciting explanations from me where I had them:
1) that Burrows is making up RNSs on the back of documents he says were received (27 April 2017) but Rigg Fulton Sanderson say they have not seen.
2) that there have been ACQUISITIONS not matched by SALES notifications (in fact equivalent in number to the number on my stolen share certificate, a copy of which was given to Equiniti in July 2009 and Burrows but which did not reach Simon Wadey until 9 June 2011, upon which he UPLOADED 178/11 on 10 June 2011 and sent me screen shot marked "Refer all transactions to financial crime", a RESTRICTION equivalent to a STOP notice on a stolen share certificate).
3) ALSO SALES not matched by ACQUISITIONS.
4) As one could say there are two made up transactions, if the numbers were the same, they cancel each other, and nothing has happened.
5) However they don't cancel, and investors have spotted 556,499 more shares bought than sold. So the market knows there have been more trades than shares in issue.
6) Market also knows that the first amount is equivalent to my stolen share certificate and that the document (certificate) was not valid from the report date 7 Nov 14, on the back of what we were expecting from 10 June 2011, with the warning arriving at Equiniti on 17 July 2009. (copy) . Ideally in July 2009 the certificate should have been voided, me told and sent an indemnity letter, so I could pay an admin fee and get it replaced.
7) I have made known I am waiting for arrangements to collect, since the certificate is mine (return of stolen goods), so I do not require a replacement.
8) There was no market notification before 14.12.16 and should have been a request to the Listing Authority for the shares to be suspended, when I was locked out when my address was changed and I could not access my records or trade.
As a major shareholder, the freeze applies to the whole of the market and the register in law is as it was 13 December 2016.
There would have had to be an announcement made if trading were to continue explaining my address was changed when I had not notified I had moved and Equiniti knew I had not, therefore I was being locked out. Burrows' 2017 accounts excluded me as shareholder altogether, together with Triad lawyers and my family lawyers Allen & Overy also excluded.
That proves he knew what he was doing was legal because shareholders and lawyers do not just evaporate for no reason, and if they did, who bother to change their address?
9) Equiniti's FRAUD ALERT dated 16 December 2016 issued by the elusive ex ops director McGrath told me some mischief maker had caused Equiniti to change my address, and if it wasn't me to notify: I received this after Christmas and notified Simon /Fraud Referrals/Margaret at the start of January 2017, and McGrath when I tracked him down: he stood me up so I escalated to Board and auditor, PwC .
Therefore I did all the correct things but because the address was not immediately corrected I was locked out for nearly 2 years, after which time I found out the 10 June 2011 crime designation was removed and so was the 7 Nov 14 alert.
This did not alter the fact that
(1) the stolen share certificate should have been voided (July 2009; June 2011; 7 Nov 14) and whether that was done at the time or not it could not be used (because the next step is to mark it as void;
(2) a certificate DOES NOT HAVE INTRINSIC WORTH, it is only PROOF;
(3) I have my PROOF from Lloyds TSB Registrars dated 14 October 2005 addressed to ME at MY ADDRESS, confirming my holding as 4,507,999, and the records of the 48 shares transferred by Lloyds TSB Registrars at the request of my lawyers for the 31 October 2005 AGM , Herbert Smith.
This is in court since then. I do not require any other proofs. 4,507,999 minus 48 is 4,507,951 and I have requested a letter of confirmation as at 31 October 2005, with the 48 beneficiary details and addresses/dates.
Burrows obtained an extract in 2009 from Equiniti and trafficked it to James Mitchell Boodle Hatfield INCLUDING MY UNIQUE REFERENCE NUMBER.
Burrows was not required by EQUINITI to fill in a PROPER PURPOSE FORM. Had he filled it in, and told the truth, he would have said that he was confirming to Boodle Hatfield he was their "man on the inside", intent on assisting them to steal my shares by falsifying the register (and saying "equiniti did it").
From 10 June 2011 I have asked Equiniti for PROTECTION FROM BURROWS. It is probably inconceivable that in December 2016 there was no communication with him (monthly register and changes) and someone must have said to change my address (which paralyses all trading). Margaret and Chris should provide all of this to Simon Wadey so he can decide what to do. That team should put all their dealings through Simon and stop giving Burrows privileges over my identity and estate and me no protection, when I was granted in in June 2011.
10) I have asked that Chris e mails BOTH Sanderson and Fulton to record my request (9 December 2016) and say he is sending it out (a) do they have any objection (in which case they can contact me); (b) would they like a copy as purchased by me for £75 (I do not mind)? He may as well copy me if he likes (if not already sent) so he does not end up as a football.
11) I am entitled by law to receive a dividend of 1p in a cheque arriving on Friday. This is £45,079.99 . Equiniti may have agreed to administer the payment for Triad directors, and the instructions come from Burrows, despite the history. The spotlight is on Chris Attwood because the true register as at 7 December 2018 has not been drawn up, the directors have not maintained one, and there has been no RNS confirming that both holders at 13 December 2016 who have not sold and "buyers" since, who were still holders on 7 December 2018, will be receiving a dividend (i.e. an inflated register).
12) There has been no announcement of a buy-back of the surplus stock, the premium that will be offered, and its cancellation. There is uncertainty but no confusion.
As Equiniti has not resigned it will have to ensure it knows and provides all the relevant information in particular at 13 December 2016.
It will be catastrophic for Triad Group Plc if I do not get my dividend in full because that means that instead of buying the surplus stock at a premium, there is an aggressive attempt to turn it into a "loss" that is imposed on me. That in turn means that Equiniti will have to formally resign in a letter which sets out the position as at 13 December 2016, with reasons, failing which it become a participant and fully liable with immediate effect.
Please let me know if Simon or Chris require further explanation, especially re dividend that goes to printers to-day/to morrow (arrives Friday).
The form follows next. Should be quick now I have done this.
Mira
On 9 Jan 2019, at 11:29, Roper, Stuart wrote:
Good morning Mira
Please find attached the form and letter that was sent to you today.
Regards,
Stuart Roper
Team Leader Registration
Customer Experience Centre, Equiniti
Kingsgate House, 54 Pershore Road South, Kings Norton, Birmingham, B30 3EP
Telephone +44 121 433 8119 Internal 7726 8119
Version 1 28 Nov 2020, 17:36 Custodian of Information
Page URL:
https://sites.google.com/site/publishedinthepublicdomain/Triad-Group-Plc-Request-to-Equiniti-For-Copy-TRD-Share-Register-Requires-Completion-of-a-Proper-Purpose-Form-178-11-Refer-All-Transactions-to-Financial-Crime-10-6--2011
4 May 2021
TRIAD GROUP PLC :
SHAREHOLDER COMMUNICATIONS
FINANCIAL YEAR 2018/19
IDENTIFYING IDENTITY OF MEMBERS AND ADDRESS
AVAILABLE FROM REGISTRAR (OUTSOURCER)
ON COMPLETION OF PROPER PURPOSE FORM PRICE £75
(OR FROM SOMEONE ELSE WHO HAS BOUGHT ONE PROPERLY AND AGREED TO SHARE IT OR MAKE IT PUBLIC FOR EVERYONE TO KNOW)
As at Tuesday 4 May 2021, AMF has not withdrawn his filed testimony signed January 2019
stating he did not know who the late Samia SR Makar (nee Samia Sami Raouf) is or was or whether she was alive or dead (per, he said, ADVFN but deleted so not retrievable).
There is no statement filed in court on this subject, on behalf of Triad Group Plc; its joint principal shareholders, (who are being kept apart to avoid consensus voting and stability); or even any honest/independent qualified individual in any (quasi) company secretarial function who has agreed to respond to an introduction to members (last attempt May 2020 when a commitment was made to reply but not fulfilled to date), to find out who they are and testify.
By such method (called "communications" or "investor relations") such a person could find out who the members of TRD are, and thereby allow TRD to be more than a ghost, with a listing but no true register of members (who remain disenfranchised) or other vestiges of existence.
TRD remains without legal representation or advice. Its powerful judicial standing is rendered nugatory.
TRD has been disabled in protection of disgruntled ex employees and in keeping its domestic affairs private by malicious falsehoods on the LSE RNS; ADVFN; Gazette; BAILII; Bloomberg etc. and random forays into court for unstated objective(s), running up voluntary expenses.
TRD has been especially exposed from 2016, when public warnings went unheeded. It was public from the Headway register at Companies House, (co-investors AMF and AJL), that predators were in operation. These were taking advantage of the fact AJL and AMF had refused to sell back their shares in 2011. This would have allowed those interested to lead their lives as they would choose, free of these two individuals and the unstated agendas they have in common, attending court 12.2.19; 13.2.20 as well as the baggage they carry with them.
This departure of AMF and AJL from the Headway register was a pre cursor for backing and to benefit from referred business, as well as necessary to the seven established captains of industry who were set to roll their separate enterprises into a new conglomerate at the start of 2007. AMF and AJL were blamed by Abacus for triggering the deed of counter indemnity to MM from March 1996, by January 2005.
Had communications not been blocked; had AJL not banned Anna Draper from meeting MM in June 2016 (described by Anna Draper as "the secretary to the chairman"); had AMF not delayed all summer to repair his computer access and have his summer holiday; had the 10 August 2016 proxy poll voting cards been preserved and the proxy poll votes issued on the RNS on 10 or 11 August 2016; had AMF not time boxed his meeting with MM on 22.9.16 and not refused to have regular get togethers thereafter, the events from September 2016 could not have had a chance to have occurred. Properly members should have been told why SMS refused to sign accounts after 2015, and have had all issues openly aired and dealt with by consensus poll voting, prioritising stability and consistency as well as communications.
Tuesday 4 May 2021: Custodian
AMF statement that he did not know who Mrs Samia Makar was or whether she was alive or dead was signed on 22 January 2019 and filed in the High Court. The statement records his home address as being The Yews, Knoll Road, Godalming, Surrey, GU7 2EJ. This is a short drive from the registered office address of TRD.
22 January 2019 was nearly a fortnight after the preparation with Equiniti for the production of the members' register at MM's expense to be shared with other members including AMF (see above).
It appears that AMF did not have the benefit of an authorised, Proper Purpose Form generating a true members' register as at 13 December 2016 at the time he prepared his witness statement.
It would also appear that he did not take advantage of the proximity of his home to the registered office of TRD to validate the identity of the members and their registered home addresses.
This is particularly odd since in December 2004 he had personally volunteered to take the keys of the two buildings in Godalming so he could come and go as he pleased in order to find tenants. This was under the oppressive terms of the leases (technically called "onerous") which prevented a floor in either building being sub-let.
Had AMF not blocked communication with MM he would have been able to enjoy the benefit of the register as at 13 December 2016 which she was happy to pay for and complete the formalities of proper purpose.
There is no conceivable explanation for this, indeed, AMF himself has not volunteered one.
For completeness, Freeths LLP has confirmed that they have not generated any bills addressed to Triad Group Plc at its registered office address in Godalming.
Consequently their involvement in these events is irrelevant save that they are culpable of suborning perjury and ought properly to have notified their secret broker and secret insurance stack and not sat around waiting for Allianz.
Allianz has confirmed that their liability is limited to £3m (ought to have been paid to Burges Salmon Client Monies Account marked Triad in February 2020, still outstanding and seriously overdue).
It looks like Freeths will have to deal with their secret broker and their secret stack themselves.
Triad Group Plc: Electronic Handling of Data Subject to Privacy and Copyright: Supplemental Authority Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 [2006] EAT 0513_06_18.10 -18 Oct 2006-Makar v TRD 2012 Folio 336 (protection from prejudice) Rider 2
Triad Group Plc: Electronic Handling of Data Subject to Privacy and Copyright: Supplemental Authority Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 [2006] EAT 0513_06_18.10 -18 Oct 2006-Makar v TRD 2012 Folio 336 (protection from prejudice) Rider 2
Claim for civil relief in respect of City of London (sic.) Economic Crime Report reference
CR6836/11, starting from crime report dated 23 October 2006, multiple offences under
the Thefts Act (property, data, cash, legally privileged information), conspiracy to steal,
blackmail and extortion, multiple offences under the Human Rights Act, including action
to deprive the Claimant and her family of autonomy in their lives from early 2006, multiple
abuses of court including sham proceedings against the Claimant using the Claimant’s
own assets, data, property, legally privileged information and those of her family and
attempts to fund same by theft from the Claimant and her family, in actions to pervert the
course of justice, avert crown and regulatory proceedings, and deny the Claimant and
her family civil relief for remedy and reparation properly due from early 2005, failure
to apply POCA business acceptance rules on business take-on, the Solicitors Accounting
rules (where relevant), Bar Council and/or SRA licencing rules, including in the case of
Reynolds Porter Chamberlain LLP, to prepare proper bills on a billing system that
is independently audited, in the case of Boodle Hatfield to work out who their client is,
failure to comply with and act in accordance with the Data Protection Act and respond
appropriately by providing the Claimant with her personal data within 40 days
prescribed in law (Boodle Hatfield, Cumberland Ellis); effecting prolonged public
humiliation and systematic denigration in public courts of the Claimant and her family in
sham proceedings to discredit the Claimant and her family and steal assets including
contingent assets (civil relief and loss of opportunity), forgery of evidence, money
laundering (December 08 to April 09), in conjunction with theft (Boodle Hatfield,
Ben Wood, Jamie Smith and others 7EX00719); breach of contract by
Russell Jones Walker including but not limited to:
1. contract between Russell Jones Walker and Allianz Legal Protection on behalf of the
Claimant
2. failure by Russell Jones Walker to secure injunction against Allen & Overy LLP,
solicitors to the Claimant and her family since the mid 1980’s, acting in opposition to the
Claimant and her family by early March 2006 (with consequence of need for claim on
6 year statutory deadline, Claim 0LV30091, Judgment in Default of Acknowledgement
of Service or Defence entered 15 April 2011 by the Claimant, where an Admission was
the only proper return that could be made);
3. failure by Russell Jones Walker to undertake Companies House research and
establish by early April 2006, that PwC had resigned without reporting properly,
either the date it decided to resign, proper reasons or the agreement entered with
Allen & Overy to create a record as persuasive audit evidence relied on by PwC
to exit without reporting properly; and failure to make mandatory regulatory report
on a timely basis or at all; including by not asking for specific disclosure from PwC
and A&O on time or at all (29 August 2006 requests being general);
4. Receipt by Russell Jones Walker of monies in excess of £647k, paid to them
or to third parties to their order, stated by them to be advances for the purpose of securing
civil relief in the matters before leading counsel in February and 1 March 2006,
requiring leading counsel to sign off before making a claim (“purpose trust”);
upon unilateral refusal thereafter, by walking out, subsequent to promise by
Geoff Drake Finance Director to provide a proper account, and the intervention of
Edward Cooper, upon failure of the purpose of the trust of which the sums were provided,
that were held by the partners as trustees to the instructions of the Claimant and the
purpose of the trust; upon the failure to account for the purpose of the trust, the failure
to account for the sums including by their return and accounting for the effect of
the walk-out properly or at all; and the costs and financial loss as well as wasted costs
and damages and consequential damages
5. Agreements between RJW, Boodle Hatfield, Angus McNicol, Foot Anstey, Tim
Manning, Sophie Hoffman, Simon Rylatt, Jamie Smith, Ben Wood, Blandy & Blandy,
Jonathan Gater that no account would be provided; that Angus McNicol would receive
some £130k to remove so-called interim charging orders; that the Claimant would be
sued on a receipt for cash of some £49,350 and that the Mayors & City County Court
would be told that RJW refused a referral to the SCCO;
and false information to the SCCO that the Claimant agreed a withdrawal of proceedings
started there;
In the case of Baker Tilly UK Audit LLP
6. Signing auditor’s report and accounts on Reynolds Porter Chamberlain LLP, when not
independent, and permitting RPC to launch proceedings against the Claimant
(together with Cumberland Ellis and Christopher Semken and Carl Trouman and Boodle
Hatfield and named individuals from Boodle Hatfield) and seek to recover several thousand
pounds of costs following sham proceedings stated to be to protect the reputation of
Baker Tilly;
In the case of Kingston Smith LLP
7. Signing auditor’s report and accounts on Baker Tilly UK Holdings Limited and Baker Tilly
UK Group LLP and other LLPs in the Baker Tilly Group, without disclosing that the going
concern basis of incorporation did not apply and that Baker Tilly had undertaken off
balance sheet financing to keep its liabilities in particular owed to the Claimant out of
its accounts, to protect its profit stream, and proceeding to occupy the Claimant and her
family in the courts from 2006 to 2012, including discrediting her and her
brother in sham proceedings in June 2009
In the case of Alistair Rose PwC statutory auditor of Allen & Overy LLP
8. Wearing two hats and not able to report independently, as partner responsible to the
Claimant as notified by Chris Maidment and Fiona Kelsey in March 2005, reporting
on matters to which both he and PwC were principals and to which A&O were witness
including facilitating PwC’s exit without reporting properly, causing a public Company
for which the Claimant was personally liable to fail and personal knowledge of the
Claimant and her family to be used against her, including by orders from A&O to the
Royal Bank of Canada to alienate her and her family from their assets
In the case of Boodle Hatfield and Reynolds Porter Chamberlain LLP
9. Arrangements to bring about organised co-operation against the Claimant and her family
as before Master Leslie (HQ0X02310) on 18 March 2011, 21 April 2011 before Master
Lennard in the SCCO and the Court of Appeal 2011/p.i./11350
In the case of Andrew Clark and David Sui
10. Falsely reporting to the Court of Appeal in August 2009; ordering the Royal Bank of
Canada to close family files, and all activity behind the Claimant’s back and that of her
family with the consequences in the Chronology in Claim 0LV30091
11. Declaration that Claimant is entitled to damages and consequential damages on an
indemnity basis
12. Relief for costs including financial loss from 2005, and interest and forex loss
13. Loss of opportunity from January 2005 to date.
14. Punitive damages in cases in which an Admission is not filed.
End of Rider 2
Erratum:
Claim for civil relief in respect of City of London (sic.) Economic Crime Report reference
CR6836/11
should read:
Claim for civil relief in respect of City of London Police Economic Crime Report reference
CR6836/11
From: "XXXXXXXXX" <XXXXXXXXXXX@city-of-london.pnn.police.uk>
Subject: cr/6836/11 (NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED)
Date: 15 February 2012 at 18:20:54 GMT
To: <mira.makar@btinternet.com>
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED
Dear Mira,
I am sorry not to have telephoned you today as I said I would, I have been making some
further enquiries with BIS today and thought it would best to contact you afterwards and
I have only just spoken to them. I now have to leave for the day and am on a course
Thursday & Friday so I will be in a position to call you on Monday although I will have
access to e-mails over the next two days.
I am also very sorry to hear that your house in Colchester was burgled, I understand that
Essex Police are dealing with the matter and that an officer from City of London Police will
attend to take a statement from you so I am confident the matter is being progressed well for
you.
On Monday we will be able to discuss this further and you can provide me with any further
information you think necessary.
With Regards, XXXXXX.
T/Detective Sergeant XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX
National Fraud Intelligence Bureau (NFIB)
City of London Police | 21 New Street | London EC2M 4TP
Tel: 020 XXXX XXXX
Mob: XXXXX XXXXXX
Email: XXXXXXX.XXXXXX@cityoflondon.pnn.police.uk
Visit the NFIB website|Find out more about the City of London Police|Report a fraud to the
national fraud reporting centre - Action Fraud
P Plase consider the environment before printing my email
#####################################################################################
Note:
This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain confidential, proprietary or legally privileged information. No confidentiality or privilege
is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive this message in error, please immediately delete it and all copies of it from your system, destro
y any hard copies of it and notify the sender. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this message if you
are not the intended recipient. City of London Police and any of its subsidiaries each reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communications through its
networks.
Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the message states otherwise and the sender is authorised to
state them to be the views of any such entity.
All incoming and outgoing emails are virus checked, however we cannot guarantee that this message or any attachment is virus free or has not been
intercepted and amended. City of London Police accepts no liability in respect of any loss, cost, damage or expense as suffered as a result of receiving
this message or any attachments
City of London Police
Website: http://www.cityoflondon.police.uk/
#####################################################################################
#####################################################################################
This e-mail message has been scanned for Viruses and Content and cleared
by MailMarshal
#####################################################################################
Tuesday 4 May 2021 1400
Report that Essex Police launched a terror attack on Good Friday, 30 April 2021at circa 10.30am at 29 Harwich Road, Colchester, Essex, CO4 3BP equipped with cameras and voice recorders. This is the registered home of the late Mrs Samia Makar, as recorded in TRD's register of members at its registered office address in Godalming Surrey, where AMF lives.
Police were filming and recording those inside the premises through the kitchen windows,
by-passing every single rule that ever existed and treating those inside caught on film in their undergarments as though they were international terrorists, drug dealers or armed with dangerous weapons they were about to launch on others. They refused to state their business.
The property is known to police as it was burgled and vandalised in February 2012 with statements with City of London Police, assisting Essex Police, in the context of the terror attacks at all known addresses of the family of the late Siham Sami Raouf, Order of the Republic, her trustees and executors.
There is no place that police could have obtained that address apart from the registered office of Triad Group Plc and its members' register, let alone the identity of the late Mrs Samia Makar whom AMF claimed he did not know, as well as not knowing if she was dead or alive. He testified to the court that he read news of her death on "ADVFN" the malicious chat-line that he used to inform MM that she was going to prison, having been sighted walking around the Barbican with underpants on her head and pencils sticking out of orifices of her head.
AMF does not have any choice but to provide fresh testimony withdrawing in full his witness statement signed 22 January 2019, together with a statement to be read out in open court with his apology to the bereaved family of the deceased.
If he does not know how to do this, he can go and ask Channel 5 who are making money out of programmes of thugs going into homes with cameras and recording equipment claiming that the residents owe money and filming and recording including other members of the same family. Channel 5 has been compelled to make an agreed statement in open court.
The equivalent from Essex Police was requiring those in their undergarments at the kitchen sink to provide full testimony of who was in the building and full identity, without once stating their business or who had put them up to this terror activity and repugnant sordid voyeurism.
AMF will be expected to explain how this all came about.
Custodian: Tuesday 4 May 2021 14:10. Updated 14.47
Statement in Open Court, Channel 5 makes public apology and pays substantial damages arising out of “Can’t Pay? We’ll Take It Away!” broadcast
Statement in Open Court, Channel 5 makes public apology and pays substantial damages arising out of “Can’t Pay? We’ll Take It Away!” broadcast
On 19 April 2021 a joint statement in open court [pdf]
https://hamlins.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Wain-Kelly-v-Channel-5-final-SIOC-25.02.21.pdf
was read before Mrs Justice Collins Rice after Keith Wain and Julie Kelly, both private individuals, accepted an offer of settlement in relation to the misuse of their private information in respect of the filming, making and multiple broadcasts of an episode of the television programme “Can’t Pay? We’ll Take It Away!” .
The couple also received a substantial damages payment, non-repeat undertakings in respect of the broadcast complained of and an agreement to pay their reasonable costs.
On 11 May 2017, two High Court Enforcement Agents (HCEAs) attended Mr Wain and Ms Kelly’s home to enforce a debt relating to a sum of money Mr Wain had borrowed from a private individual who had agreed not to press Mr Wain for payment of the sum owed. A film crew was also in attendance.
Mr Wain made it clear to the film crew that he did not wish for them to enter his home or for him to be filmed. However, the HCEAs who did enter their home wore bodycams and radio microphones and recorded video and audio footage which was subsequently shown in the programme.
The episode was first broadcast on 6 September 2017, and Channel 5 only ceased broadcasting it in late 2020 once legal proceedings had been issued for misuse of private information. The episode in question was broadcast to over 6.7 million viewers in total.
The programme showed Mr Wain and Ms Kelly in their own home in a state of considerable distress and the substantial damages payment which Channel 5 has agreed to pay them in settlement of their claim reflects the very serious nature of the privacy intrusion and breach of their Article 8 rights.
Following the reading of the agreed statement, Mrs Justice Collins Rice commented: “I do hope that today’s Statement and the other terms of the settlement will assist Mr Wain and Ms Kelly to draw a line under this clearly upsetting episode.”
The Judge added that while the broadcaster worked on a case by case basis to balance privacy and public interest, she suggested there is “perhaps an opportunity here” to consider how the balance is struck and stories are approached.
BODY CAMS AND RADIO MICROPHONES TO FILM AND RECORD PEOPLE AT HOME IN CONSIDERABLE DISTRESS AS RESULT: APOLOGY STATEMENT IN OPEN COURT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
MEDIA AND COMMUNICATIONS LIST
BETWEEN:
(1)ANDREW KEITH WAIN (2) JULIE KELLY
-and –
CHANNEL 5 BROADCASTING LIMITED
S TATEMENT IN OPEN COURT
CLAIM NO: QB-2020-003322
19 April 2021
XXXXXXXX, Solicitor for the Claimants
My Lord/Lady, in this action for misuse of private information, I appear on behalf of the Claimants, Mr Andrew Keith Wain and Ms Julie Kelly.
My friend, Mr. XXXXX, appears on behalf of the Defendant, Channel 5 Broadcasting Limited.
The Claimants are private individuals.
The Defendant is a national broadcaster which broadcasts Channel 5, and also 5HD, 5 + 1, Spike, 5Star and 5USA. It also owns and operates My5; a free video on-demand internet service via which it makes selected programmes available to view.
In September 2020, the Claimants issued proceedings against the Defendant for the misuse of their private information in respect of the filming, making and multiple broadcasts from 2017 until late 2020 of an episode of the television programme ‘Can’t Pay? We’ll Take it Away!’ by the Defendant which showed the Claimants in their home in a state of considerable distress. The Claimants sought an injunction restraining the Defendant from further broadcasting the episode complained of, or any similar broadcasts in which they are featured, and a payment in damages for the misuse of their private information.
12752704.DOCX version 1
The relevant background to the dispute is as follows. In 2002, Mr Wain borrowed a sum of money from a private individual to invest in a new business. Unfortunately, the business failed and Mr Wain was unable to repay the money to the individual, who subsequently brought a claim against Mr Wain in the County Court obtaining a judgment against him in January 2012. However, the individual subsequently agreed not to press Mr Wain for payment of the sum owed.
More than five years later, and without warning, on 11 May 2017 two High Court Enforcement Agents (“H C EA s”) attended the home Mr Wain shared with Ms Kelly to enforce the debt. Mr Wain owed the debt in issue. Ms Kelly, the second Claimant, did not owe the debt. The enforcement proceedings were not against her.
A film crew was in attendance with the HCEAs. Initially only Mr Wain was present. He made it clear that the film crew was not to enter his home or to film him or Ms Kelly. The film crew agreed not to enter the property. They knew from Mr Wain’s refusal to permit them entry that he did not want them to film him, the inside of the home he shared with Ms Kelly or what took place in the home.
Ms Kelly then returned home, by which time the film crew had withdrawn to the pavement at the end of the drive. The film crew remained there throughout the time the HCEAs were in attendance.
However, the HCEAs wore bodycams and radio microphones. They were recording video footage and audio of what was taking place in the Claimants' home. The video and audio recordings obtained in this way were then included in the programme. The section of the programme that featured Mr Wain and Ms Kelly was nearly wholly comprised of recordings made in this way.
The film that was recorded by the HCEAs was then edited and incorporated into an episode of Can’t Pay (Series 5 Episode 16), which also included a limited amount of film obtained by the film crew. The episode which depicted the Claimants was first broadcast by Channel 5 on 6 September 2017.
The Defendant has confirmed in its Defence that the programme has been broadcast to over 2.5 million people in a form in which the Claimants' faces were shown, and to a further 4.2 million people in a form in which the Claimants' faces were blurred and their names removed.
The broadcast of the programme has caused the Claimants immense upset and distress. The Claimants’case is that the programme wrongly revealed matters that were private to them which took place in their home. They are both very private individuals and they live in a
12752704.DOCX version 1
small community and word soon spread about the programme amongst people they know through work and socially. It is the Claimants' case that the filming of them within their own home and subsequent publication of the private information obtained in that way to 6.7 million people amounted to a grave misuse of their private information.
13. The Defendant has served a Defence denying the Claimants' case but I am pleased to report that the parties have been able to resolve their dispute by agreement. The Claimants have accepted an offer made by the Defendant to resolve their claim on terms which involve the Defendant agreeing to pay substantial damages to the Claimants as well as their reasonable legal costs of bringing the claim. The Defendant has also undertaken not to broadcast the programme again, or to make it available via the internet. It has also agreed to join in this statement to apologise to the Claimants publicly for the considerable distress caused to them by the programme.
XXXXXXX, Counsel for the Defendant
14. My Lord/Lady, it is the Defendant’s case that it has at all times believed that this programme forms part of a series of real public interest, where each of the stories involves a careful balancing exercise between matters of public interest and the right to respect for privacy.
It is prepared to accept, however, that on this occasion, in relation to the Claimants, it may well have got that balance wrong and for that reason it is prepared to settle their claim and also apologise to them for the distress caused to them by the broadcast of the episode in question.
XXXXXXX, Solicitor for the Claimants
15. My Lord/Lady, in light of the order that has been made, and this public statement, the Claimants consider that the matter is now concluded.
9 November 2005: PwC Dinner For Senior Tax Alumni (MM)
PwC: "We rely on you from the inside, signing off, as our protection"
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse