Arthur -v- Layte PZ 200604

© JH Layte 2004-2009  ...  No part of this CD may be re-produced or transmitted by any means without prior permission in writing from JH Layte


November 2009


Litigation 2002 - 2005

The numbers in brackets refer to the document (B nnn) in the Trial Bundle folders B1 and  B2






June 2000

Mrs Arthur and Mr Everard


According to a document (60+3) (supplied by D Arthur in 2004) Mrs Arthur and Mr Everard had, in June 2000, discussed 

the possibility that Mr Everard purchase our shop. In 2001 Mr Everard had (allegedly) been told the value was about £60,000

with an upper limit (if he really wanted it) of £70,000. The meeting allegedly took place at Mr Everard's shop (opposite

ours) on Murdoch day 2000. The Laytes were not made aware of Mr Everard's interest by either Mr Everard or

Mr & Mrs Arthur. At about the same time (June 2000) the Arthurs stopped attempting to collect rent from the

operators of the shop (Mr Farr and Mr Amor) and reverted to attempting to collect from Mr Potts who Mr and

Mrs Arthur assured the Laytes was still the tenant but they said he had moved from his Woodley address and was

proving difficult to trace. The Arthur's refused the Laytes offers to try and trace him. (K Layte has relatives near

      Woodley) D Arthur stated "The situation is under control and any interference from the Laytes would be
0     more a hindrance than a help". Mr Arthur continued to claim that he was trying to trace Mr Potts throughout
      the remainder of 2000, all of 2001 and up to July 2002 when Mr & Mrs Arthur instigated their Claim against the
      Laytes. Amongst the evidence that Mr Arthur supplied in support of the Claim was a note of a phone conversation
      between D Arthur and Fred Potts on 20 November 2000 to the landline tel. number of Mr Potts's new address
      (Mr Potts's mobile number is also noted). Mr Arthur also knew Mr Potts's new address from at least 1 November
      2001 because he (allegedly) sent an invoice to Mr Potts at his new address on that date (this invoice was also
      discovered in the evidence supplied by Mr Arthur on 29 July 2002)

(NB at a subsequent meeting with Mr Everard (at 52 Fore Street on 24 March 2006) Mr Everard confirmed to JL

that this "draft witness statement" and the later 30 October 2005 "witness statement" were genuine and

were produced/signed by himself although he declined to put this in writing). At this same meeting Mr Everard

stated he had not refused to appear at the trial in support of his 30 October 2005 witness statement as

Mr Arthur had claimed was the case at the trial)

02 November 2001

D Arthur J Layte and D Lanyon


Because of rent arrears approaching £16,000 we confiscate the tenants stock and fittings  (Photos) . Change the

locks and J Layte+D Arthur agree to pay the tenant's employee her wages from the till cash. Mr Lanyon was

employed as an independent witness. D Arthur suggested that  certain items from the shop should be transferred

to J Layte's residence for safe keeping (such as the till and its cash contents). Mr Lanyon's van was used

to do this. J Layte suggested to D Arthur that Mr Lanyon should be paid for his efforts in cash but D Arthur

chose to give him a fire extinguisher and a ladder instead ... however D Arthur apparently added the proviso that

D Lanyon would have to return these items should the tenant settle the rent arrears at a later date.

31 May 2002

Arthur threat of litigation (v-Layte)

Threat 1 (207+6)

D Arthur explains to the Laytes that in his opinion the Laytes have overvalued the shop (52 Fore St

Redruth) in the past and generally blocked sales and so on and that as far as he is concerned

(long letter)

the Laytes agreed in 1988 to be solely responsible for building and maintenance and that the

Arthurs be in charge of everything else, including selling our jointly owned shop. If the Laytes

do not accept this opinion then the Arthurs must "Consider an application to the Court". The Laytes do

not accept this opinion nor do they accept D & A Arthur's + their estate agent's  very low valuation of the

property is realistic (about half the Layte's and their estate agents valuation).

NB The Laytes suspected that Mr & Mrs Arthur had a "preferred" buyer but were unaware who it was at
the time. The Laytes were unaware of Mr Everard's interest or of the June 2000 meeting between him
and Mrs Arthur. It was not until 11 March 2003 that Mr Everard made his interest known to the Laytes and
      not until 8  February 2004 that the Laytes became aware Mr Everard had had an earlier interest.
2 June 2002 D Arthur to J Layte


Your estate agents valuation of 120-130k is absurd . Only a idiot would pay £120k (note although the Arthurs and
their agent (and apparently Mr Everard ) insist the value is less than £70k Mr Everard eventually paid £133k)
May - mid June Arthur and Layte Valuation Dispute Refer to Arthur docs (111)   (131)  (141-182) and Layte (L162-L172) Essentially Arthurs value £60-90K  Laytes £120-130K
9 June 2002 D & A Arthur to J Layte Fax Arthurs agree to sell their 50% to Laytes at £42K .. Offer open for 24 hours
10 June 2002 J Layte - D Arthur Phone note J Layte explains that D Lanyon is the buyer D Arthur says this is OK. J Layte tells D Arthur that D Lanyon would like
      the shop cleared of tenant's property prior to completion and the chalet problem clarified. D Arthur states that a statutory
      declaration is needed regarding the chalet and that as it was J Layte that visited the neighbour in (1993?) J Layte must make
      it but D Arthur will send a draft stat dec for guidance (this he did on the 12 June by fax). As for the tenant's property D Arthur
      volunteers to transfer this to his own residence whilst he continues to negotiates with the tenant and pay the Laytes half
      of the £10/£11K they have so far offered (towards the £13K now owed) provided the Laytes agree in writing to forfeit their half
      of any amount above this he may recover. J Layte thinks this OK (but cannot speak for K Layte who lives separately).
      J Layte will discuss this and the statutory declaration with K Layte once the draft has been received. A meeting with
      K Layte was arranged at J Layte's residence for 14 June 2002 so that she would type the stat dec and discuss with D Arthur
      on the phone.
10 June 2002 Arthur to J Layte Alleged Fax Confirms part of the phone call but J Layte has no record of receiving this (JL only has a computer fax and it is not in
       the received fax log) If this fax had been sent then J Layte and D Lanyon would not have spent many hours
      discussing plans, visiting planners, arranging loans (D Lanyon) because the 24 hour extension would not have
      have been enough time. (see D Lanyon witness statement ( document A71 to A74 ) for the truth)
14 June 2002 (day) Tenant's solicitor to D Arthur Fax Confirmation of agreement between D Arthur (acting for the Arthur - Layte partnership) and (Mr Farr and Amor)+ Mr Potts.
      £10K plus stock and fittings towards claim for outstanding rent owed to the Arthur Layte partnership.
14 June 2002 (eve) J Layte to D Arthur Phone note No mention of the settlement earlier that day and no mention that D Arthur requests Laytes send him a signed
      authority to allow him to transfer Mr Pott's stock to his abode whilst he continue to negotiate for the rent
      settlement. Laytes agree (K Layte is at J Layte's own abode at the time and fax him an authority to clear the shop
      of Mr Pott's "curtain material, etc". Unaware that the "curtain material, etc" is no longer Mr Potts's and that
      the Laytes own half of it at the time they discuss the matter and within the hour send the fax below.
14 June 2002 J+K Layte to Arthur Fax Agreement to clear the shop of property belonging to Mr Potts  This was faxed at 20:51 on the evening of the
      day Mr Arthur had settled the rent dispute but had "forgotten" to tell the Laytes they now were £5K better off
      and owned 50% of the stock and fittings which of course no longer belonged to Potts.
17 June 2002 Arthur v Potts Claim Arthur Claim against Potts (placed in Arthur evidence at 17 June 2002 but actually dated 24 May 2002 which
      gives the Judge the false impression that the Claim was entered after our 14 June 2002 letter)

20 June 2002

Arthur to D Lanyon

Accusation 1

(214) Letter. You and J Layte were trying to cheat us out of £9600 and J Layte has admitted it.


this is theft .. sale to you is cancelled. You should seek legal advice

(The Arthurs had agreed to sell their 50% interest in the shop to D Lanyon for £42,000 ten days before.

Now they are inventing reasons to get out of this agreement ) (see D Lanyon witness statement ( document A71 to A74 )

      for the truth)

20 June 2002

Arthur threat of Litigation (v-Layte)

Threat 2 (215+2)

Unless Laytes appoint agents to sell the Arthurs will auction shop with no reserve and apply to the Court

for an order preventing the Laytes or their agents interfering in the sale (a Draft Claim was attached)

Laytes appointed Pound & Co (218) and RSM as joint agents but D Arthur said that was not what he meant.

Joint sole would be OK. The Laytes appointed the agents as Joint sole. Mr Arthur told them both that

the Laytes did not have his authority to appoint them (219+8) and he would not pay their fees unless they

were appointed as sole agents (both of them!!) The agents withdrew and from that moment on the

only (open) marketing of the shop was a web site set up by the Laytes

21 June 2002 D Arthur to J Layte Letter D Arthur needs a list of the items removed from the shop (by J Layte + D Lanyon) on 2 November 2001
      "in order to set out precisely where we stand in relation to the Potts tenancy"
      D Arthur was at the time saying he thought a settlement with Potts was "near" and he wanted J Layte
      and D Lanyon to return Pott's property so that he can reclaim it from the shop following payment of the
      outstanding rent.
      However D Arthur omits to point out in this letter that there had been a settlement one week previously  and that
      regardless of the fact that Potts may be about to settle D Arthur had agreed nearly two weeks ago to transfer Mr Potts's
      property to his own abode and he has still not done so (it wasn't Potts's property of course but the Laytes didn't know this
      because neither of the Arthurs had told the Laytes about the 14 June 2002 agreement with our joint tenants)
26 June 2002 J Layte to D Arthur Letter Petty to provide a list. The Items (other than D Lanyon's) can be returned at a moment notice.

27 June 2002

Arthur accusation of theft

Accusation 2

D Lanyon and/or J Layte have custody of the fire extinguisher and ladder that D Arthur gave D Lanyon


as payment for being a witness to confiscating the stock etc on 2 November 2001. The tenant wants to

settle ("he" already had two weeks ago) and you must return these items and the other items J Layte.

took home on 2 November 2001 otherwise it is theft. (copy of theft act included!)

All items were returned to the shop on 1 July 2002 with the exception of the till cash. J Layte's reasoning

was that if the tenants were going to settle the full rent arrears then this cash (about £168) would be taken

into account.

1 July 2002 D Arthur to Laytes Letter Confirms that in 10 June 2002 phone call D Arthur volunteered to Transfer Potts's property and he didn't do
      this because the Layte's 14 June 2002 letter (contract?) fails to confirm. Nevertheless D Arthur will now
      arrange "for the clearance" on the basis of this letter that fails to confirm.
      The implication that D Arthur is still trying to extract more money from Potts is of course nonsense as the
      settlement (with Farr and Amor) had been two weeks before.

05 July 2002

Arthur threat of Litigation (v-Layte)

Threat 3 (229)

Notice before Action . If you do not confirm that you will instruct Pound & Co (under Arthurs conditions)

and you take no action regarding the chalet and you refrain from obstructing the sale (by the Arthurs

to whom they want to sell at the price they want to sell) D Arthur will on 9 July 2002 apply to the Court

for an emergency injunction preventing the Laytes from interfering in the sale

06 July 2002

Arthur threat of Litigation (v-Layte)

Threat 4 (230+1)

D Arthur letter to Ross Pascoe (Nalders) This is a Letter before action for a part 8 application for an

Order For Sale with the same 9 July deadline as my threat to the Laytes of 5 July 2002

07 July 2002

Arthur threat of Litigation (v-Layte)

Threat 5 (232)

D Arthur letter to Ross Pascoe (Nalders) If I do not get confirmation that the Laytes have complied

with the conditions I have laid down in my threats of litigation of the 5 and 6 July 2002 by the date

I ordered (8 July 2002) I will fax you an unsealed copy of our Particulars of Claim on the morning of

the 9 July 2002

07 July 2002

D Arthur to J Layte

Letter  (233)

Amanda Champion's valuer allegedly valued Alma Place at £100,000 (Sly says it sold for £100,000)

The Wool Basket at £75,000 (Burridge says it sold for £75,000) and our shop at £65,000

is it your wish that her valuer achieves a hat trick? (no .. but remind us never to employ her valuer

.... our shop sold for £132,500 )

08 July 2002

Arthur threat of Litigation (v-Layte)

Threat 6 (234+2)

D Arthur letter to Ross Pascoe (Nalders) If you do not persuade the Laytes to obey my orders and

stop them interfering in my selling the shop then I will have no option but to obtain a Court Order

preventing them from interfering.

10 July 2002



D Lanyon witnesses D Arthur+1 removing items from shop. Laytes (unaware that half of this belongs

to them) assume he is moving Pott's stock to his abode as he had said he would do a month before.

15 July 2002


Application 1

Laytes + their agent have overvalued the shop at £120-130,000 ...£75-90,000 is professional valuation

also Laytes in breach of fiduciary duty and have caused delay in marketing .. damages (limited to £15,000) to

      be assessed after the sale.
      The Arthur's plan was to
      (1)  Apply for an injunction preventing the Laytes from interfering in the sale (see 26 July 2002 Application below)
      (2)  Having gained full control (via the injunction) of the sale then sell to Mr Everard for about £60K
      (3)  Claim that £60k was all they could recover of the £90k valuation because of the delay in marketing
      (4)  Since the £30k loss was (allegedly) caused by the Laytes delaying tactics claim £15k damages plus costs
      Thus the shop would be sold to Mr Everard for the £60k he had agreed with Mrs Arthur two years previously
      the Arthurs would receive £30k of this plus £15k damages and costs from the Laytes (about £50k)
      and the Laytes would receive £30k minus £15k damages and costs (about £10k)
      The plan was not successful but did cause the Laytes a great deal of expense and effort to achieve a price of £133k.
      Following the sale the Arthur's (adjourned) damages Claim should have been dismissed by the Court since a claim that
      the delay (however and by whoever caused) had resulted in a profit rather than a loss can hardly be called
      a damages Claim (negative damages perhaps?)  Instead of dismissing the "Claim" the Court allowed
      Mr Arthur to restore the it albeit pointing out it had no relevant pleadings. Aware of this Mr Arthur sought to
      add a "pleading" that he hoped the Court would decide in his favour and would disguise the fact that all his other
      pleadings were nonsense. Mr Arthur decided to lie to the police regarding a fabric rolling machine that he claimed
      J Layte had stolen. As a result of Mr Arthur's lies J Layte was arrested and although the police conceded that
      no crime had been committed they issued a PACE notice to J Layte and told Mr Arthur it was a valid one (it
      was not). Mr Arthur used this PACE notice as his "trump card" when filing his "amended particulars of Claim"
      some nine months after its issue.
      Even with the advantage of a PACE notice Mr Arthur was unsuccessful but its issue has caused a further
      four years of litigation (To date (Feb 2008) that is!)


J & K Layte at/to Nalders


Ross Pascoe of Nalders warns that if they are appointed to defend D Arthur's Application then, even assuming winning




the "claim", the Laytes will only recover about 70% of their solicitors costs which are predicted to be in excess of




£35,000. Nalders advise to either sell at Arthur's valuation or defend the Claim in person. Laytes decide not




to sell at Arthur valuation but since they know nothing of litigation to try and appoint a solicitor to "advise" in




the background. None found willing to do this and in the end Walsh & Co appointed on the strength of




T Walsh's assertion that he knew D Arthur and had won against him in the past. (wheel clamp case)

17 July 2002 D Arthur and J Layte Event J Layte encounters D Arthur at the shop and enquires as to what progress (if any) is being made regarding the outstanding rent?
      D Arthur refuses to answer. J Layte states he will have to contact Potts himself and asks if D Arthur has managed to find out Potts’s
      new address or telephone number yet? D Arthur refuses to answer.
18  July 2002 Laytes to Mr Potts Letter Posted to Mr Potts's last known address requesting information regarding the rent settlement.
      In addition the Laytes tried to trace Mr Potts and Farr and Amor over the internet and were able to trace a shop operated by
      Mr Potts and leave a message for Mr Potts to contact the Laytes.   
19 July 2002 Mr Potts to J Layte Phone call Rent settlement about a month ago (between Arthur and Farr and Amor)
      See 19 July 2002 in pre-litigation Chronology for more details.

20 July 2002

Arthur threat of Litigation (v-Layte)

Threat 6.1 (237)

D Arthur will apply for an injunction to prevent the Laytes from interfering in the sale unless they agree

not to interfere in the sale. If a contested hearing results (and Arthur wins) then this letter will be

produced when the matter of costs comes to be decided. The Laytes will not allow the Arthurs to

sell our jointly owned shop at the Arthur's valuation as they believe it far too low.

29 July 2002

Arthurs to Laytes


Arthur's deliver a large bundle of documents to J Layte's address. Amongst the documents is a fax (115)

dated 14 June 2002 from Farr and Amor's solicitors confirming a rent settlement of £10,000 plus all the

stock fixtures and fittings at the shop. Laytes now know that £10,000+contents involved in settlement.

that the Arthurs have not told the Laytes about (accidentally according to Recorder Parish later) A more

      detailed accounts of events surrounding this settlement between the tenants of our jointly  owned shop 
      and the Arthurs and the Arthur's concealment of it is in the pre-litigation chronology June/July 2002

26 July 2002

Arthur v Layte interim injunction

Application 2

Arthur's be allowed to sell shop without Laytes interference to who they chose and at what price

they want when they want.

26 July 2002

Notice of hearing (interim injunction)


Hearing of Interim Injunction will be 2 Aug 2002 at Penzance

02 August 2002

Injunction hearing Judge Griggs

Hearing 1

Our solicitor suggests Arthur's claim is a classic abuse of process and should be struck out

Judge agrees claim is nonsense but says he is not going to strike it out until Laytes enter a

Defence then apply for it to be struck out properly. Judge suggests Arthur seek legal advice and

suggests that if this is a valuation dispute he should issue an application under the Trustees of

Land and the public Trustees Act (section 14 and 15 ??). Arthur did not change his claim nor did

our solicitor apply for it to be struck out. (Probably the beginning of the fiasco this has now become)

02 August 2002


Transcript of above hearing from trial bundle document A 151 to document A 163

02 August 2002

Order Judge Griggs

Order 1

Arthur injunction refused: further directions hearing listed for 2 Oct (changed to 7 Nov on 1 Oct)

06 August 2002

Arthur+(Layte) v Berryman

Application 3

The neighbours had placed a chalet on our land in about 1990/1991. The neighbours were informed

that we had title to this land by J Layte in July 1993 but since Mr Arthur has attempted to forcibly

remove it in July 2002 they have dug their heels in and claimed adverse possession. Mr Arthur has

made this application including our names (as co owners) but has not informed us he has made

the application let alone our names are on it. This puts us in a difficult position because although

we think the neighbours are in the wrong and the shop value will be less without the land occupied

by the chalet we are also aware that "our" main evidence is a Stat Dec (239+3) D Arthur has made which

states that J Layte gave temporary permission for the chalet to remain in July 1993 ( sort of true )

and that the chalet was also first noticed in July 1993. (This is not true). We are thus presented

with the problem of siding with the neighbours (whom we are in disagreement with) or Arthur who

has submitted evidence we know to be partly false. Our solicitor suggests we side with the

Berrymans but we do not agree with him. Unsure what to do we sit on the fence.

Since there is now a boundary dispute agents are not willing to market the property as most

buyers would require a mortgage and lenders are not keen on boundary disputes apparently. The

Web site remains active and attracted a few enquiries but all but one were put off by the boundary

dispute. The one who was not put off by the boundary dispute (TPS Insurance) viewed with J Layte

and offered £75,000 .... apparently acceptable to the Arthurs .... but not the Laytes.

30 August 2002

Layte Defence + Counterclaim filed

Layte Defence

Layte defence and counterclaim to Arthur v Layte claim filed by Laytes' solicitor (T Walsh)

    + Counterclaim Judge Griggs had insisted this was filed at the 2 August Hearing (see Transcript). Following this it was
    (A7 - A11) intended to apply for the Arthur Claim to be struck out but our solicitor did not do this mainly because

D Arthur intimated he was willing to settle out of Court (and then refused all proposed settlements)

31 August 2002 Arthur Defence to Counterclaim Arthur Defence to Arthur Defence to Layte Counterclaim. Paragraph 2 and 3 denies that the £10,000 part of the (secret) rent
    Counterclaim settlement with our joint tenant(s) that Arthur had made on our joint behalf was part of the settlement and that
      the Laytes are also not entitled to their 50% of the stock fixtures and fittings. Paragraph 4 is totally untrue as
      no such "accounts" were ever supplied to the Laytes and since D Arthur has on several occasions ignored
      requests for copies it is very doubtful any accounts were ever produced. The "The statements made in this
      defence are  true is of course nonsense and probably constitutes Perjury
11 September 2002 D Arthur to Layte solicitor Letter I have received an offer of £84k and the buyer does not want the land with the chalet (yes he did but he
      was not aware there was a boundary dispute (regarding the chalet) because D Arthur "forgot" to tell him
      about this and since he is borrowing to buy then the lender will not lend under the threat of a dispute
20 September 2002 Layte solicitor to Berryman solicitor Letter (regarding the chalet boundary dispute) Mr and Mrs Layte were not aware that D Arthur had instigated proceedings
      against your clients and had included their names as Claimants
20 September 2002 Layte solicitor to Arthurs Letter You have instigated proceedings against the Berrymans naming the Laytes as Claimants without their consent
20 September 2002 Layte solicitor to Arthurs (2) Letter Confirmation that a "without prejudice meeting is agreeable and note of phone call to Mr Arthur who also agrees
25 September 2002 T Walsh, DA, JL Meeting Without prejudice meeting to try and end the litigation (KL unable to attend as she was in South Africa)
      It was provisionally agreed that the Arthurs would be willing to settle provided that the Laytes paid the
      Arthurs £45k for their interest and took over the chalet dispute. The Arthurs would also pay the Layte's
      solicitors costs (about £2.5k at the time) provided a VAT invoice was provided. The Layte's solicitor would
      not agree to this however and J Layte could not agree to buy out the Arthurs and take over the chalet
      dispute without KL's agreement but would contact her in South Africa to ascertain her views on this.
      NB Although the attendance note states (see separate note of meeting) T Walsh claims to have lost this

01 October 2002

Arthur+(Layte) v Berryman


Judge Thomas notice of hearing 7 November (later adjourned to 12 December it is believed )

15 October 2002 Layte (solicitor) and K Layte Phone call (K Layte having returned from South Africa) Discussion of 25 September meeting
20 October 2002 G Woods to D Arthur (e-mail to J Layte) E-mail Re Stating £84k offer to buy
28 October 2002 K Layte to Layte solicitor Letter The Laytes will accept Greg Woods offer of £84k (with provisions)

07 November 2002

Hearing Judge Thomas

Hearing 2

Length of trial and track discussed

07 November 2002

Arthur v Layte Judge Thomas

Order 2

Allocation to multi-track + Directions re disclosure and witness statements listing questionnaires etc

Neither Arthur nor Laytes' solicitor took any action as far as these directions were concerned mainly

because Arthur had convinced the Laytes' solicitor that he was willing to settle out of Court. The

Laytes' solicitor put forward several settlement offers (see below) but Arthurs rejected them all.

14 November 2002 D Arthur to Layte (solicitor) Letter G Woods has increased his offer to £90k and the Arthurs consider it valid (from solicitor file . page 2+offer missing)
18 November 2002 D Arthur to Layte (solicitor) Letter Confirmation that Scott Burridge Chick are G Woods bank's valuers. The problem with this is that it
      confirms G Woods is raising the capital to purchase via a bank loan and since there is a boundary dispute
      with the neighbours (regarding the chalet) then he will not be able to purchase the property by this means. D Arthur
      has stated that G Woods is not interested in the (disputed) land that the chalet is on.
4 December 2002 D Arthur to Layte (solicitor) Letter "without prejudice" offer to settle the litigation. Not acceptable to the Laytes for obvious reasons
      but mainly the fact that the Arthurs have considerably increased their former offers to sell and to insist
      the value is £90k (if sold to Woods) and £114-120k (if sold to Laytes) is unreasonable.
10 December 2002 G Woods to D Arthur (e-mail to J Layte) E-mail (Regarding his offer of £90K) Please inform if you have reached an impasse with (the Laytes) or have
      "more than one iron in the fire" (probably both .... although the Laytes were not aware of Mr Everard at the time)
15 December 2002 (ish) G Woods and J Layte Meeting Because D Arthur has stated that G Woods is not interested in the "disputed land" and the Laytes are willing
      to sell to him it was decided that J Layte will visit G Woods (at his shop in Redruth) to discuss the
      possibility to sell to him  without this land (Very much against the Layte's solicitors advice however)
      so J Layte visits G Woods to try and find a way forward (also against the Layte's solicitors advice!)
      Mr Woods tells J Layte that he was unaware there was a boundary dispute and he had assumed the land
      at the back (the disputed land) was part of the property as it was included in the plan on the web site (it was
      since the web site had been uploaded before the boundary dispute started). He was annoyed that D Arthur
      had not told him about the dispute because he had wasted time and money with solicitors and his bank and his
      valuers regarding the purchase. He stated he had had trouble with D Arthur on an earlier occasion and did
      not trust him and suspected he actually wanted to sell to someone else (as he had hinted at in his e-mail
      of 10 December) he did not state who this "someone" was (and the Laytes were not yet aware that Mr Everard had
      expressed an interest to the Arthurs). He was not interested in purchasing without the land but may be
      interested in renting PROVIDED that the Arthur's were not in any way involved (because of his earlier disagreement
      with them). He wanted to have an answer before mid January 2003. It was agreed that J Layte would attempt to
      resolve the chalet issue and / or attempt to purchase the Arthur's share so that even if no agreement can be made with
      the Berrymans in the short term regarding the chalet (disputed land) it would be possible for the Laytes (alone) to rent
      to Mr Woods in the mean time. (see subsequent letter)

12 December 2002

Berryman notice fast track

Hearing 3

District Judge Thomas (Arthur + Berryman solicitor attend the hearing but Laytes do not)

12 December 2002

Order Judge Thomas

Order 3

Berryman PZ200692 various directions

27 January 2003 Layte (solicitor) to Arthurs Letter "without prejudice" offer to settle. The Laytes are willing to either sell to G Woods at £90k or purchase
      the Arthurs share at £45k with conditions regarding the Arthurs paying solicitors costs, Laytes share of
      rent settlement with tenants and settle with Berrymans to resolve the disputed land dispute.
      the bottom line would be that the Laytes pay their solicitors costs and pay the Arthurs £28.6K to end
      all aspects of the action and then sell to G Woods (or rent if the disputed land is not resolved)
3 February 2003 D Arthur to Layte solicitor Letter I do not accept your offer to settle
17 February 2003 Ms Butler to J Layte E-mail Enquiry via the shop for sale web site but on learning of the boundary dispute Ms Butler decides to await
      the outcome of the coming hearing (20 February) which may resolve this problem.

20 February 2003

Berryman Hearing Judge Thomas

Hearing 4

Consent order agreed at Court just before the hearing. Adjournment requested but refused at the hearing

      (NB The Laytes and their solicitor attended this hearing only to attempt to resolve the Berryman boundary dispute
      and also discuss settlement with D Arthur. The Layte's solicitor was not on the record concerning this hearing
      despite addressing the Judge at the hearing of his own accord)
20 February 2003 DA+TW+KL+JL Meeting At a meeting following the hearing (and the agreement regarding the boundary dispute prior to the hearing)
      The Laytes and their solicitor attempt to settle with Mr Arthur by increasing the 27 January offer of £28.6K to
      £30K but D Arthur refuses and states that now the boundary dispute resolution has been agreed he
      intends to sell the property without interference from the Laytes or their solicitor (to Mr Everard perhaps?)
      and "walks out in something of a huff"
      At this time the Laytes did not know of Mr Everard's interest (but the Arthurs did) and the Arthurs did not
      know of Ms Butlers interest (but the Laytes did). Once Arthur learnt of the Butler offer (below) he refused
      to sign the Berryman consent order and attempted to re-open the boundary dispute to prevent the sale
      to Butler who would not be able to borrow against a property with a disputed boundary.

20 February 2003

Berryman Order

Order 4

Defence be filed and Laytes side with claimant or defendant by 18 March (no mention of consent agreement)

25 February 2003

Butler to J Layte

E-mail (243+1)

Following an enquiry to the "Shop for sale" web site on 17 February and a viewing with J Layte on

21 February Ms Butler offers £100,000 for the shop. The boundary dispute had been resolved by consent and

      all that remained (we thought!) was for the Arthur's to sign it. (at this time only the Arthurs knew of Mr Everard's
      interest and the agreement he had (allegedly) made with Mrs Arthur in June 2000)

25 February 2003

Laytes (solicitor) to Arthurs

Fax + Letter

(245) Please confirm you are willing to sell to Butler for £100,000

5 March 2003 D Arthur to Layte (solicitor) Letter I have only just received your 25 February letter .. Please supply a copy of the offer
6 March 2003 Laytes (solicitor) to Arthurs Letter Regarding the meeting at Penzance Court and Arthur threat to amend the Claim

07 March 2003

D Arthur to Laytes (solicitor)

Fax + Letter

(246+2) I will not sell to Butler. It is not a serious offer. Too many caveats. Friends of the Laytes probably !

11 March 2003

D Everard to J Layte


I may be interested in purchasing shop will you show me around? ...J Layte yes ...... be there in 30 mins

      Mr Everard and his wife attend and J Layte shows them around. J Layte informs that the Laytes have accepted
      an offer of £100k but the Arthurs have not. Mr & Mrs Everard say they are interested but do not make an offer
      to J Layte. J Layte suggests that if Mr & Mrs Everard wish to make an offer then, because of the litigation
      between the Arthurs and the Laytes it would be better if an offer (if any) were made by Mr Everard's solicitor
      to the Layte's solicitor. (a more detailed account of this meeting was taken from a note incorporated in
      a later letter of 25 June 2003 to Mr Everard's solicitor explaining the situation surrounding Mr Everard's known
      interest (at that time his June 2000 interest was unknown). This letter was not sent but included in the evidence
      as a contemporaneous note.

11 March 2003

Everard (solicitor)to Layte (solicitor)

Fax    (249)

Everard also Offers £100,000 with less caveats and promises more speed than Butler

12 March 2003

Butler (solicitor) to Layte (solicitor)

Fax    (250)

Butler offer increased to £105,000 with no caveats and equal speed to Everard offer.

13 March 2003

Layte (solicitor) to Arthurs

Letter (251)

We have received offers from Everard's solicitors of £100,000 and Butlers solicitors at £105,000. Are

you prepared to sell to Butler for £105,000?

14 March 2003

D Arthur to Layte (solicitor)

Fax    (252)

I will accept an offer of £105,000 provided I do the conveyancing without Laytes or their agents interfering

14 March 2003

D Arthur to Everard (solicitor)

Letter (253)

I will be doing the conveyancing .. Layte's solicitor will not .. only correspond with me in future

      (D Arthur did not copy this letter to the Laytes at the time but D Everard told J Layte about it and it was requested by
      the Laytes and copied to them by D Arthur on 10 June 2003)

14 March 2003

Layte (solicitor) to Arthur

Letter (254+1)

We note you are prepared to sell to Butler at £105,000 but your condition that you be responsible for the

conveyancing is not acceptable.

14 March 2003 Layte (solicitor) to Arthur CPR 36 Offer Last of several CPR 36 offers to settle the Arthur - Layte litigation (rejected by D Arthur 21 March 2003)

20 March 2003

Arthur to Butler solicitor

Letter  (256+2)

Laytes have refused to sell. I enclose a draft contract (ignoring the fact that Laytes won't allow this)

21 March 2003

D Arthur to Laytes (Solicitor)

Threat 7 (262)

I reject your offer to settle the Layte litigation. Also the Laytes should pay the Arthurs damages regarding

the Berryman litigation. You have 7 days to discuss, If not we shall be amending our pleadings to increase our Claim

21 March 2003

Layte (solicitor) Application

Application 4

Arthur provide disclosure lists + As Arthur has threatened to amend his claim we have not been

able to complete our witness statements until we know for sure the Court is, or is not, going to

allow him to make amendments thus we need more time to complete our witness statements.

31 March 2003

Mrs Arthur to Butler and her solicitor

Letter  (259)

Under certain acts we are responsible to execute the transfer and it appears from Section 26 of the

law of property act 1925 just our signatures will suffice and also section 36 of the Trustee

Act 1925 will prevent the Laytes interfering. The last paragraph demonstrates that Mrs Arthur does not want the

      Laytes to sell our jointly owned property for more than £105K (wonder why?) (not copied to the Laytes at the time)

02 April 2003

D Arthur to Butler Solicitor

Letter  (260)

Although I am solely responsible for conveyancing we do have an in house solicitor to assist.

      (not copied to the Laytes at the time)

02 April 2003

D Arthur to Butler Solicitor

Letter  (261)

Nevertheless I have made a proposal whereby the Laytes solicitor acts in the sale (not copied to the Laytes at the time)

02 April 2003

D Arthur to Layte (solicitor)

Threat 8 (263+1)

We will agree to sell to Butler and sign the Berryman consent provided the Laytes (and their

solicitor) do not interfere and agree to my 8 special conditions. If not then we may apply to the Court.

(The Laytes and their solicitor did not agree the conditions and their Solicitor refused to act in the sale)

(The Laytes de-instruct their solicitor and attempt to find one who will act in the sale - Grylls & Paige found)

24 April 2002

Layte Application

Application 4

Arthur provide disclosure lists + As Arthur has threatened to amend his claim we have not been

able to complete our witness statements until we know for sure the Court is, or is not, going to

allow him to make amendments thus we need more time to complete our witness statements.

24 April 2003



Hearing of Layte application will be 14 May at Penzance

30 April 2003

Order for costs Judge Middleton

Order 5

Arthur had not filed listing questionnaire. Explain why he should not pay costs.

14 May 2003

Hearing Judge Healy

Hearing 5

Immediately before the hearing the Laytes paid the £30 Berryman consent order fee only to discover D Arthur has just

paid another fee (£300 listing fee?) to re-open the Berryman dispute. The Laytes have not complied with the order of

20 Feb and neither have the Berrymans. (What is the point .. we had all consented to end the dispute and

      only the Arthurs have not signed the consent Order). Arthur sees this as an opportunity for him to be awarded

costs (we have not sided with Arthur as claimant) We see it as an attempt to further hold up the Butler sale

since her lender would probably withdraw if there was a problem with a re-introduced boundary dispute.

Judge refuses to allow Arthur to amend claim at this late stage. Orders sale to Butler (as below)

To enable the sale the Judge tells Arthur he should agree and sign the Berryman Consent order.

Arthur agrees somewhat reluctantly and the Court returns his cheque.

14 May 2003

Order Judge Healy

Order 6

Witness statements to be exchanged by 4.00 pm 21 May

First Order for sale to Ms Butler Grylls & Paige acting in conveyancing .. Permission to the

parties to apply for some different order if Butler drops out

21 May 2003

Laytes to Arthurs

Service (265+1)

Arthurs refuse to agree how/when to exchange witness statements so Laytes deliver theirs to

Arthurs' service address before 4.00 pm on 21 May as ordered. Arthurs refuse to answer phone or

respond to answer machine messages. J Layte leaves message "Since you have not exchanged

witness statements by the time ordered I presume you will be relying on the first affirmation of D Arthur?"

03 June 2003

Arthurs to Laytes

Service (267)

Apparently having not looked at Laytes' witness statements" Arthurs serve theirs on Laytes

03 June 2003



Trial 16/17 June Plymouth

04 June 2003

Arthur to Laytes

Letter  (268)

Dated 4 June but delivered 7 June (Saturday) for some reason. The trial is to be on the 16 17 June we

must agree a trial bundle in the next few days. Since the Arthurs were refusing to answer the phone

and all types of communication except first class post at the time the Laytes resolve to ask the Court

what to do on Monday 9 June. Their advise was that all 1000 or so documents would have to be the

trial bundle and that we should write to the Arthurs stating this and also inform the Judge at the trial

the Arthurs were not being co-operative in the preparation of a bundle. We did both

05 June 2003



Transfer to Plymouth ?

05 June 2003



Transfer to Truro 16 June only

08 June 2003

Arthur to Laytes

Letter (269)

Dated 8 June (Sunday) delivered 10 June (Tuesday) I have yet to receive a reply to my (misdated or

mysteriously delayed) letter of the 4 June (hardly surprising as Mr Arthur is apparently writing this on a

Sunday and no Post is delivered on a Sunday. Had we replied immediately on the day before, when

we received his 4 June letter (a Saturday), he would not have received our reply until Monday 9 June.

10 June 2003

K Layte to D Arthur

Letter (270)

We will have to rely on all documents at the trial since we cannot agree a trial bundle.

10 June 2002

Arthur Application

Application 5

Defence be struck out for failing to disclose documents (no such documents ever existed)

11 June 2003

Grylls & Paige to Arthurs


Enclosing draft contract to sell to Butler that Laytes have signed. Please Arthurs sign and return

12 June 2003

D Arthur to Court

Accusation 3

(271) The Laytes are still refusing to co-operate in the preparation of a trial Bundle

D Arthur did not copy this letter to the Laytes at the time (PZ Court faxed it to JL on 4 Aug 2003)

12 June 2002

D Arthur to Laytes

Letter (272)

Since you refused to co-operate in the preparation of a trial bundle I have been obliged to prepare one

13 June 2003

Everard (solicitor) to Arthur


Mr Everards solicitor "surmises" that Butler has dropped out and offers £105k for the shop on Mr Everards behalf

LAYTES NOT MADE AWARE OF THIS LETTER AT THE TIME (see 30 Jul 2003 and 17 Aug 2003 letter below)

Mr Arthur's claim in his letter of 16 July 28 June 2003 that K Layte produced it in Court is a lie as is his claim in

various documents ( 23 June 2003 for instance) that he was not aware Mr Everard was interested in purchasing

until the evening of 17 June 2003.

14 June 2003

Fax Arthur to K Layte

Fax   (273)

Butler has dropped out (Laytes contact her (by phone) to see if this is true .. it isn't true)

15 June 2003

Note Butler to Layte

Note  (274)

No I haven't

16/17 June 2003

Trial (Counterclaim) Recorder Parish

Hearing 6

Arthur tells Judge Butler has dropped out. Laytes tell Judge she hasn't and show him the note

from Butler. Judge decides Arthur must be mistaken and Butler has not dropped out.

Judge adjourns Arthur claim - Will hear Layte Counterclaim if we agree - we agree but point out

that Arthur Witness statement "exchanged" two weeks after we delivered ours to Arthur (129) and that

Arthur has prepared the trial bundle (Falsely claiming (272) that the Laytes had refused to co-operate in its

production and also we later find out to the Court (271)) and that Arthur has not provided us with a copy thus

we have no idea what evidence he has included. Judge decides to go ahead with counterclaim trial anyway and

points out "In these circumstances it is the Claimants responsibility to prepare the trial bundle"

Arthur agrees to cross-reference any evidence we produce from all the evidence that we have with

us in Court with the trial bundle that only he and the Judge have. This turns out to be a bit of a

fiasco as most of the evidence we refer to is not included in "Arthur's" trial bundle and either Arthur or

Layte's hand the Judge evidence that should have been included.

At the end of the trial the Judge expresses his hope that the sale to Butler progresses as planned. The

Laytes say it would help if Mr & Mrs Arthur would sign the draft contract (the Laytes had done a couple of weeks

ago) The Judge asks Mr Arthur if he has signed? Yes he replied. When?  asks the Judge last Friday (13 June)

Mr Arthur replies. On checking this with Grylls & Paige it turns out they received the contract from Mr & Mrs Arthur

on 18 June 2003 (dated 13 June 2003!) but Mr & Mrs Arthur had not signed it as Mr Arthur had told the

Judge and they had returned it with their letter of 18 June 2003 (It later became known that Mr Arthur had

changed the name on the draft contract from Butler to Everard and the price from £105k to £110k  ...if it had
been changed at the time Grylls & Paige returned it or not is unknown)

17 June 2003

Order Recorder Parish

Order 7

Judgement for defendant in sum of £5000. No costs awarded. (Judge at Arthur Claim trial to decide) Arthur claim

adjourned with liberty to restore.

17 June 2003 Judgement Recorder Parish Judgement (Trial Bundle A  Documents A75 - A84)

18 June 2003

Arthur letter to Court

Letter  (275)

10 Jun Application (Defence be struck out) not heard on 16 June Please formally adjourn

18 June 2003

Fax Arthur to Grylls and Paige

Accusation 4

(276) J Layte has been secretly negotiating with "a prospective buyer" for months at £110,000 !!!!  Do not exchange with

Butler and Rouse  (difficult as Arthur's have the contract and Grylls & Paige do not) The negotiations by J Layte were so

      secret that even J Layte himself did not know who he had been negotiating with however K Layte had noticed at
      the trial that D Arthur had been in possession of a letter from Thurstan Hoskin (another solicitor) last heard of when
      representing D Everard in March 2003. Because of this J Layte phones (on 19 June 2003) Thurstan Hoskin and discovers
      they do have indeed have a client interested in purchase but refuse to state who it is.
      A couple of days later the Laytes discover the client is Mr Everard. The same Mr Everard that had not "outbid" Ms Butler's 
      £105K offer in March!

19 June 2003

Layte fax to Thurstan Hoskin

Fax      (277)

No I haven't

21 June 2003

K Layte to D Arthur

Letter   (350+1)

It is D Arthur that has been secretly negotiating with Everard and has been dishonest & secretive for years

23 June 2003

D Arthur to K Layte (and J Layte)

Letters (352+21)

No I haven't

(352 to 373)

A further 21 pages demonstrating D Arthurs "honesty" according to D Arthur

23 June 2003

Layte fax to Everard (solicitor)

Letter  (278+1)

If Mr Everard wishes to offer £110,000 then he should do it openly to Grylls & Paige

who are acting for both Arthur and Layte in the sale as ordered to do on 14 May

26 June 2003

Layte to Everard Solicitor

Letter    (349)

Mr Everard's solicitor should be communicating with both sellers, not just  the Arthurs

18-28 June 2003

Arthur to Everard (solicitor)

Various (286+4)

Various letters and notes regarding Arthurs wish to sell to Everard and not Butler

30 June 2003



Transfer to Penzance

01 July 2003

D Arthur to Farr+Amor Solicitor

Accusation 5

(280+2) J Layte stole your till money. I know in my letter of 15 January 2002 I said your employee Mrs

Stevens took the till money in the presence of myself and an independent witness (Mr Lanyon) and

stated she would be paying into your clients bank it now transpires that in fact Mr Layte took it

because he has admitted taking it in Court on 16 June 2003 (see 20 December 2003 below)

01 July 2003

Laytes file for permission to appeal

Appeal 1

We did NOT give Arthur our half of stock NOR did we wash hands of dispute. Also trial bundle problem

04 July 2003

Arthur threat of Litigation (v-Layte)

Threat 9 (283)

To preclude further interference on 8 July 2003 I shall apply to the Court to get the Order to sell to Butler

amended to substitute Mr Everard at £110,000 WITHOUT A HEARING. If the Laytes apply for a hearing

I shall renew my application to strike out the defence for failure of disclosure. (D Arthur should know by now that the

      Laytes do not respond to Arthur threats in the way he would like them to)

04 July 2003

Everard to Layte

Letter   (347+1)

Everard informs Laytes that he is willing to offer £110k. His solicitors no longer involved

7 July 2003

Layte letter to Arthur

Letter   (284)

We do not consent to amending the order to sell to anybody without a hearing

08 July 2003

Arthur threat of Litigation (v-Layte)

Threat 10 (285)

As you continue to refuse to disclose documents I shall immediately renew my application to strike out

the defence. Further your unproductive interference is currently causing costs to accumulate at

several hundred pounds per week and although a litigant in person cannot recover solicitors costs

I (D Arthur) have convinced District Judges in the past that I am worth two thirds of a solicitor so this

will cost you heaps if you continue interfering . It ends "Would it not make more sense to cease defying

the 1988 agreement and allow me to sell the property for the best price with minimum delay and


09 July 2003

Arthur to Layte

Letter (342+1)

Arthurs will no longer accept fax, e-mail and their new service address is to be a PO box

number without a postcode (no by hand service?)

09 July 2003

Arthur to Layte

Letter (290)

Arthurs were not secretly negotiating with Everard. Only became aware of Everard evening of 17 June 2003

(utter nonsense!!! June 2000 to 13 June 2003 is the truth) No negotiations. However Everard says he has been

negotiating with J Layte since early December 2002. Are Laytes accusing him of lying? (Could be ! (291+2))

10 July 2003

Layte to Arthur

letter (291+2)

Chronology of Arthur secret negotiation and attempted cover up regarding the 13 June 2003 letter

11 July 2003

Layte to Everard

Letter (294+1)

Thank you for your offer to purchase 52. Please refer it to Grylls & Paige

11 July 2003

Layte to Arthur

Letter (296+2)

Response to Arthur letter of 9 July (342+1) regarding future communications to be only

by first class mail

11 July 2003

Arthur threat of Litigation (v-Layte)

Threat 11(299)

If you refuse service I shall apply to the Court for an order that the defendants be committed to prison

for contempt of Court.

11 July 2003

Arthur threat of Litigation (v-Layte)

Threat 12 (300)

Laytes statement in our appeal "the Claimants are likely to be unwilling to bring the case back to

Court" (once the property has sold) is untrue. The Claimants will restore their Claim because the

Laytes will have to pay the Arthurs' costs of about £35,000. It ends "As stated repeatedly your actions

continue to force us to incur costs and you will surely lose much more by refusing to comply with

the agreement. I again urge you to stop wasting your time and money and allow me to dispose of the


12 July 2003

Layte to Arthur

Letter (301+5)

Regarding Arthurs letter to Barclays in January 1990 and till cash letter lie

14 July 2003 J Layte to Grylls & Paige (CC T Letter Suggestion to break the deadlock .. Apply for a hearing to determine if Mr Everard's offer is genuine
and allowable (bearing in mind the Order to sell to Butler at a lesser figure!) and if it is then
have an auction between the two in Court.

15 July 2003

Arthur Application for Committal

Application 6

The Laytes should be imprisoned for refusing Arthur's order to communicate only by post.

and refusing to disclose documents that have never existed (except in Arthur's mind)

16 July 2003

Arthur to Layte

Letter (307+2)

Arthur blaming K Layte as regards the 13 June 2003 letter from Thurstan Hoskin. According to

Arthur it was K Layte that introduced it at the trial and not D Arthur!!!. Also denies cheating as regards the

trial bundle

20 July 2003

J Layte to Arthur

Letter (310+3)

Reply to 16 July 2003 letter above pointing out some of the "untruthful statements" contained in it.

21 July 2003

J Layte to Thurston Hoskin

Letter (314)

Requesting a copy of the 13 June 2003 letter from Thurston Hoskin to Arthur

25 July 2003

Notice of committal hearing


Committal hearing 1 Aug 2003

27 July 2003

J Layte to Arthur

Letter (315+1)

List of documents delivered to Kennall Vale by hand (Arthur response was to change service address to

a PO box no in an attempt to stop this method of service) Also inform Arthur that Laytes have




suggested Everard attend the coming 1 August 2003 hearing and that Butler wishes to attend. (hoping

that if both potential buyers are present a sealed bid auction would be ordered)

28 July 2003

Arthur to Layte

Letter   (344)

Arthurs do not consent to Butler being present at the coming hearing.

30 July 2003

D Arthur to Layte

Letter   (345+1)

D Arthur letter claiming to be a hard copy of the fax he sent to K Layte on 14 June 2003. Miraculously this

second copy has an extra page !!! The missing 13 June 2003 letter from Thurston Hoskin.  Previously

D Arthur had claimed this fax was a single page (342) (it was) and that K Layte handed it to the Judge

(307) (she didn't)

01 August 2003

Hearing Judge Griggs

Hearing 7

Arthur says Butler has dropped out. Butler (in Court) says she hasn't Everard not in Court

01 August 2003

Order Judge Griggs

Order 8

Second Order for sale. (1) First order be varied contract race between Butler and Everard at

£110,000 (2) Post only communication (we complied but Arthur claimed the first two letters we faxed to the

Court and copied (by post) to Arthur he did not receive as we had predicted likely to the Judge)

Arthurs application to strike out the defence is adjourned generally with permission to restore.

04 August 2003

Grylls &  Paige to Arthur + Layte

Letter   (317+3)

There is to be a contract race at £110K please confirm I may exchange with the first. Will Mr and Mrs

Arthur return the signed contract as a matter of urgency.

05 August 2003

K Layte and J Layte to Grylls & Paig

Letters (318)

Laytes confirm Grylls & Paige may exchange with whomever is first

07 August 2003

Grylls & Paige to Arthur + Layte

Letter   (320)

We have the Laytes confirmation but not the Arthurs  also Everard has now asked for a contract

Do I have confirmation that from all that I may submit one to him and will the Arthurs answer my

letter of the 4 August (exchange with winner and return the signed draft contract)

08 August 2003

Letter Grylls & Paige to parties

Letter   (321+2)

Butler has won Contract race - Completion suggested 15 Aug - Contracts were not exchanged

with Butler because Arthur's have still not returned ours to Grylls & Paige with their signatures added

to Laytes despite telling recorder Parish he had done so on 13 June 2003. In fact Arthur has issued

this contract to Mr Everard's solicitors having first substituted "Everard" for "Butler" and "£110,000"

for "£105,000" without our knowledge or consent. (we found this out later)

10 August 2003

J Layte


Believing shop now sold to Butler (who wishes to complete in 5 days time) removes rubbish from shop

to provide vacant possession. Amongst rubbish is fabric rolling m/c (this m/c needs van and helpers

to remove due to its size and weight) J Layte employs D Lanyon (who has a van) + one other rogue

10 August 2003

Arthur to Grylls & Paige

Letter   (324)

Butler has not won Everard has won because Butler now wishes to contract in the name Cornish Blue

Interiors Ltd Arthur and refuses to sell to Ltd company wishing to complete in four days but will sell to

Everard who wishes to complete in eight weeks.

11 August 2003

Layte to Court

Letter   (325+5)

Who has won contract race? We think Butler because she was first and Everard had not even asked

Application 7

Grylls and Paige for a contract to exchange. Arthur thinks Everard won because Butler has since the

the order to sell to her decided to exchange contracts in the name of "Cornish Blue Interiors Ltd"

and Arthur refuses to sell to a Ltd Co

12 August 2003

Grylls & Paige to D Arthur

Letter   (331+5)

Please return the draft contract. We are now aware that Mr Everards solicitors have a contract but

we did not send it out and are not sure how they came to be in possession of it.

13 August 2003

Grylls & Paige to Laytes

Letter  (332)

Enclosed a letter from Mr & Mrs Arthur authorising Grylls & Paige to exchange with Everard and

providing the forged Draft Contract to enable them to do this.

13 August 2003

Notice of hearing


Layte letter of 11 August 2003 (325) above treated as an application. Hearing 15 August

15 August 2003

Hearing Judge Thomas

Hearing 8

Who has won contract race?. Judge decides neither has won contract race since Butler changed

name to Ltd Co and wrong to exchange in that name but Everard also not won as had not even

asked for a contract to be sent to him to exchange.

D Arthur states he will drop his claim against Laytes if Judge Thomas orders a sale to Everard

Judge Thomas cannot see what difference it makes who the property is sold to and since the

property was now as good as sold surely the claim no longer exists?

We point out the claim has been adjourned and there was an ill defined damages element to it

and Mr Arthur had leave to restore it which is what he is threatening to do if we (and the Judge?)

don't order a sale to Everard. The Judge says he will order a second contract race between

Butler (in her own name) and Everard and that neither party must show any preference to

to any one buyer. See below for Arthur interpretation of this part of the Order!

15 + August 2003

Arthur to Grylls & Paige

Threat 13 (338+3)

Unless you sell to Everard I will (a) Appeal 15 Aug hearing + (b) Not pay your fees + (c) Instigate

litigation against you for not automatically issuing a contract to Everard. Grylls & Paige withdraw

from acting in the sale. Laytes pay their fees (Including Arthur's half) in the hope they change their

minds and act in the sale to whomever it is decided is the buyer in the future.

15 August 2003


Transcript of above hearing from trial bundle A (Document A 164 to Document A199)

15 August 2003

Order Judge Thomas

Order 9

Third Order for sale Contract race Everard and Butler (in own name) at £110,000 Grylls and Paige

To be given all necessary instruction and parties to fully co-operate in achieving a sale.

15 August 2003

Arthur to Lord Chancellor's Dept

Letter   (337)

Judge Thomas has called me arrogant. This is a value judgement. My opinion of Judge Thomas

is that he is "Well meaning .. but stupid"

17 August 2003

Arthur to Layte

Letter    (177)

I did fax you Mr Meteyards letter of the 23 June 2003 as the second page of my 14 June

fax and I also include a third copy of my 19 June 2003 letter that you say I did not post you and

I enclose a proof of posting to prove I sent you a letter on that day (yes but not this one!)

19 August 2003

Arthur to Grylls & Paige

Fax + Letter

Arthur threatens litigation + refuses to pay their fees + threatens to appeal the 15 August Hearing

unless Grylls & Paige sell to Everard. The Defendants know of this communication and have asked

the Claimants (and Grylls & Paige) for a copy but this has not been supplied.

21 August 2003

Arthur Appeal of order of 15 Aug filed

Appeal 2

Everard won first contract race at £110,000 and should be installed as buyer at that price. The Judge

should not have called me arrogant and this value judgement influenced his decision. The only

evidence before the Court was Arthur's fourth affirmation (untrue we had faxed two letters to the Court

attaching copies of about 11 other letters ... we had posted copies of these to Arthur as per the

Court order requiring only communication by first class post but Arthur in this appeal is stating he

did not receive his copies) Later admitting he had received half of them.

29 August 2003

Butler solicitors to Arthur (CC Layte)

Letter   (374+1)

Will Arthur's accept Increased offer of £120,000 from Butler and sell to her at that price?

29+30 August 2003

Layte to Court

Letter   376+3)

Request the Court for order for sale to Butler at £120,000 (taken as an application see 8 September 2003)

30 August 2003

Layte to Everard  (cc Arthur)

Letter   (380)

Will you (Everard) match or better the Butler £120,000 offer?

16 September 2003

Everard to Layte

Letter   (384+2)

No I won't .Arthur will win appeal and the Court will agree I won the first contract race at £110,000

01 September 2003

Notice Judge Overend


Permission to Appeal & Appeal (if permission granted) take place on 13 October 2003

01 September 2003

Order Judge Overend

Order 10

(1) Permission to appeal and (if granted) appeal 45 mins (2) Arthur provide transcript by 1 Oct 2003

(3) If no transcript provided by that date matter listed to show why the application should not be

struck out (Arthur's did not even ask for a transcript till 2 October. By the 9 October it was still not

ready. Arthur's did supply us with a transcript (dated 11 October 2003) at some time but we are not sure whether

it was before or after the appeal hearing on 13 October for which it was intended)

03 September 2003

Layte to Arthur

Letter  (381)

Will you agree to sell to Butler @ £120k? You have suggested settlement. What are your proposals?

08 September 2003

D Arthur to Butler solicitor

Letter  (382+1)

I will not accept the Butler £120,000 offer because she+ Laytes+ her solicitors are trying to trick me

08 September 2003

Notice Judge Griggs


Directions hearing re our letters of 29 and 30 August take place on 11 September

10 September 2003 Butler solicitor to D Arthur (CC Layte) Letter Response to D Arthur 8 September letter above. We are not trying to trick you, we are genuine buyers
and it is you who are not telling the truth
10 September 2003 D Arthur + PC Silver Event Following a break in at the shop (reported by D Everard to Arthurs) D Arthur and PC Silver attend and
      conclude that it was the Gas Board who broke in to recover their meter due to the fact that D Arthur
      has not paid an alleged gas bill. D Arthur notices that the fabric rolling machine is missing and later told
      Recorder Parish he reported it stolen by persons unknown to the police at the time (see transcript)
      PC Silver denies this and the police state D Arthur did not report the fabric rolling machine missing
      presumed stolen by persons unknown until 19 December 2003 (see 2 Aug 2005 police letter).
      It is not known whether the police are telling the truth or Mr Arthur is telling the truth but if Mr Arthur's
      self appraisal is itself true the police should perhaps arrest themselves!

11 September 2003

Hearing Judge Griggs

Hearing 9

Laytes explain Butler is willing to pay £120,000. Judge asks Arthur if he is willing to sell to Butler

Arthur refuses to sell to Butler at £120,000 or drop his Appeal to install Everard as £110,000 buyer

11 September 2003

Order Judge Griggs

Order 11

Judge sympathetic but because of Arthur's refusal to sell to Butler and drop his Appeal his "hands

are tied" until appeal heard thus Order = No order ..costs with case.

17 September 2003

Layte to Arthur

Letter  (485+1)

These are the facts regarding Mr Everard and the delay in marketing the shop

21 September 2003

Layte to Everard (cc arthur, Court)

Letter   (387+2)

These are the facts..Perhaps the Arthurs have not appraised you of them as they are?

13 October 2003

Hearing Judge Neligan

Hearing 10

Judge points out the whole thing is ridiculous and the property must be sold. Arthur says Laytes

are interfering and says Everard is buyer at £110,000. Laytes say Butler has offered £120,000 but

Arthur is refusing to sell to her at that price and insisting Everard won the first contract race

Laytes inform Judge Grylls and Paige may not be willing to act because Arthur has threatened not to

pay their fee and has threatened them with litigation. Laytes have paid their full fee (including Arthur's

half) but nevertheless they may still be unwilling to act in the sale.

13 October 2003

Order Judge Neligan

Order 12

Fourth Order for sale. minimum price of £120,000 Gryllis & Paige to act (provided that they agree)

Proceeds of sale be held by the Court pending outcome of Arthur's "claim" unless both parties agree

it be distributed (not what the Layte's wanted to hear of course .. Arthur will never agree to pay out

Laytes predict) Arthur Appeal allowed (but not heard)

13 October 2003

Arthurs to Laytes

Letter  (390)

Arthurs are going to appeal Judge Neligan's Order of 13 Oct re no costs (they didn't for a change)

21 October 2003

Grylls & Paige to Layte

Letter  (391+1)

We are no longer willing to act in the sale because of the Arthurs threats of 19 August 2003

23 October 2003

Letter Grylls & Paige to Court

Letter  (393+5)

We refuse to act in the sale .... Arthur's have threatened us with litigation etc, etc see 15+ August

30 October 2003

Notice of hearing


Grylls & Paige to explain objection to acting .. Hearing 7 November at Exeter (application by the Court)

30 October 2003

Layte application for order for sale

Application 8

Order for sale to Butler at £120,000 to be heard at same hearing as Grylls & Paige objecting

31 October 2003

Notice of Hearing


Layte application to be heard at same time as Grylls & Paige objecting on 7 Nov 2003

03 November 2003

Court of Appeal order Lord J Tuckey

Order 13

Layte permission to appeal 17 Jun judgement refused without a hearing

04 November 2003

Laytes apply for a hearing

Application 9

For Hearing at Court of Appeal (Hearing granted 3 December 2003 at Court of Appeal)

04 November 2003

Mrs Arthur Application

Application 10

Application to adjourn 7 November hearing at Exeter for 10 days as D Arthur has backache and

will be unable to attend Court at Exeter

05 November 2003

Order for hearings

Order 14

Grylls and Paige to be heard 7 Nov ... Laytes' order for sale to be adjourned until 21 November however

the Court did not inform the Laytes of this adjournment until after J Layte had set of for Exeter on
7 November

07 November 2003

Hearing Judge Overend

Hearing 11

J Layte attended Hearing (unaware order for sale had been adjourned) together with counsel for Grylls &

Paige. No Mr Arthur due to "backache" Judge asks J Layte why he is not willing to sell to Mr Everard? J Layte

says he is not willing to sell to Mr Everard because he is offering £110,000 and Butler is offering £120,000.

      The Judge thinks this a valid reason and turns to Council for Grylls & Paige. Much to J Layte's surprise

and in contradiction of all the evidence Counsel for Grylls and Paige states Everard is also willing to pay

 £120,000 and furthermore Grylls and Paige are allegedly willing to act in the sale to him!!

      Judge proposes that J Layte should agree to  sell to Everard at  £120,000 but J Layte thinks this unfair on

Butler who was first to offer £120,000 and may be willing to go higher and suggests an Order for a

sealed bid "auction" rather than yet another contract race. Judge states that if J Layte wants such an

Order then "he must compose it" and leaves the Court. J Layte (with the help of G & P counsel) composes

a suitable draft Order. The Judge agrees the draft Order on his return and makes it unaltered.

07 November 2003

Order Judge Overend

Order 15

Fifth Order for sale

Draft contracts be sent by 4.00 PM 11 Nov to each potential purchasers identified by the Claimants

and Defendants inviting sealed offers of £120,000 or more. Closing date 4.00 18 November 2003

Costs awarded to Grylls & Paige £750 plus VAT

7 November 2003 J Layte to Butler solicitor Phone call I was not able to obtain an Order for sale for £120k only one for a sealed bid "auction" for £120k or more
(on way back from Buyers to be identified by sellers and Grylls & Paige to act in the sale.
Exeter) Butler solicitor informs J Layte that Butler is no longer interested because of the trouble and expense
the Arthurs have caused her since she first offered to buy in February. The solicitors had attempted to inform
J Layte of this by fax on 6 November 2003 (just before the 7 November 2003 Hearing) but were not able
to transmit (J Layte uses a computer to receive fax and it was not on at the time because J Layte was out)
J Layte suggests that he will identify Butler as a potential buyer anyway just so that if she changes her
mind she will be able to bid. Butler solicitor agrees to this and will post the failed fax to J Layte.

07 November 2003

Layte to Grylls & Paige (CC Arthur's)


J Layte identifies (1) Mr Everard (2) Ms Butler (3) Mr Gay (4) Nameless pop singer D Arthur mentioned

had been interested in purchasing but J Layte had not replied to his (alleged) enquiry to the web site

08 November 2003 Butler solicitor to J Layte letter A copy of the attempted 6 November 2003 fax received confirming Butler will not be bidding but J Layte
      decides NOT to tell the Arthurs of this just in case they inform Mr Everard who would then most likely
      decide not to bid above £120,000 (or at all!)

10 November 2003

Layte to Grylls & Paige (CC Arthur's)

Letter+fax (400)

J Layte identifies D Lanyon as a potential purchaser

10 November 2003

Layte to Grylls & Paige (CC Arthur's)

Letter+fax (401)

Mr Gay has now contacted me and said he will not be bidding so please do not send contract to him

19 November 2003

Grylls and Paige to Arthurs + Laytes

Letter  (402)

Sealed bids opened on 18 November. Only one bid of £132,500 Purchaser is Mr Everard ..SOLD !!!!

20 November 2003

D Arthur to Laytes

Letter  (403)

Your preferred buyer (Butler? Lanyon?) didn't bid. We were right not to sell to her she was not genuine.

our (preferred?) buyer (Everard) was genuine and has proved it by paying £12,500 more than your

buyer allegedly offered. As usual, parasitic upon our expertise, you have made more money than you

deserve :-)

21 November 2003

Hearing Judge Overend

Hearing 12

This is the adjourned order for sale hearing but since the shop is "almost" sold there is not a lot

the Judge can do other than clear up a few loose ends such as Arthur's adjourned with liberty to

restore original claim and the difficulty of relying on first class post as the only means of service

D Arthur did not attend because he still has backache

21 November 2003

Order Judge Overend

Order 16

(1) Arthur original claim to be dismissed unless restored by 5 December 2003 (3) Mr Layte to be

allowed to deliver by hand to Arthur's Kennall Vale address

22 November 2003

Arthur to Court

Letter  (419)

Please restore the Claimants Claim. Following the sale a  significant damages claim remains.

23 November 2003

Arthurs to Grylls and Paige

Letter  (404)

Mr Everard told us he would be offering about £128,000. The £132,500 mentioned in your letter of the

19 November may be a typing error !!...Because of this possibility the Arthur's will accept £128,000 !!!!!

25 November 2003

Arthur to Laytes

Letter  (405)

What have you done with my fabric rolling machine you removed from the shop?

26 November 2003

Arthur to Laytes

Letter  (406)

Although the Judge found in your favour in the Counterclaim the Arthurs actually won it because he awarded

the Arthurs the major part. IE the Laytes £10,000 share of the stock that the D Arthur convinced the Judge

was "old unfashionable and worthless" which it was not ... as our evidence would have proved if included in the trial bundle.

27 November 2003

Order Judge Thomas

Order 17

Arthur's claim is restored .. However.. What exactly is his claim? ... there is a lack of pleadings

30 November 2003

D Arthur to Layte

Letter  (420+1)

J Layte failed to inform about a pop singer who e-mailed nor the gas bills he must have noticed when

he stole the fabric rolling machine (not that I told the police (or Recorder Parish) I knew who had removed it)

03 December 2003

Court of Appeal Lord Justice Ward

Hearing 13

R Eddy letter hearsay. Lord Justice Ward "surprised" that Laytes would have given the Arthurs stock they believed

valuable and asked him to dispose of it.

03 December 2003

Court of appeal Lord Justice Ward

Order 18

Laytes' permission to appeal the order of 17 June 2003 refused. Mediation recommended

08 December 2003

J Layte to Court of Appeal


I am not happy with the Court of Appeal decision and will be appealing to the House of Lords if you do not allow

a further hearing. This letter is to inform you of this in case there is a time limit on HO Lords Appeals.

19 December 2003 D Arthur Cunning plan Having managed to restore his "damages Claim" on the 27 November 2003 (and it having been stated in the Order
      that there is a lack of statement of case, evidence and pleadings) D Arthur, aware that a restored damages Claim that 
      is "The Laytes are overvaluing the shop ... damages to be assessed following the sale (at the Arthur's low valuation)"
      is not looking to be allowed by the Court since the shop has just been sold at the Layte's valuation. D Arthur decides
      to increase his original "Claim" by inventing a new pleading that would be difficult for the Court not to allow since
      it relies on an interpretation of an earlier Judgement (Counterclaim Trial). The new pleading will be that J Layte
      has stolen the Arthur's fabric rolling machine. The difficulty Mr Arthur has is that he is aware that J Layte removed
      the FRM some months earlier (August 10 2003). He has already requested it's return (25 November 2003) and since he
      can hardly go to the police and state "I noticed my FRM missing back in August/September and know J Layte with
      Mr Lanyon's help have removed it and only now in December have decided it was stolen" Mr Arthur decides to lie
      to the police as follows.

19 December 2003

Arthur allegation of theft to police

Accusation 6

Arthur claims he has just noticed his fabric rolling M/C is missing. He had not visited the shop

Crime ref 611

between January 1 2003 and 19 December 2003 and between those dates someone unknown

must have stolen it. The machine was worth about £6000 and it was his because it was part of a rent

settlement with "his" tenants. The police investigate and probably because there is no sign of forced

entry and D Arthur informed them that J Layte has a key and knows the burglar alarm code the police

cleverly deduce that the thief may be J Layte. To confirm this deduction perhaps the police

checked the recordings from the CCTV camera facing the shop? If they did then after looking

through months of footage the recordings would have revealed that it was indeed J Layte who

"stole" the fabric rolling machine at about 8:50am on 10 August 2003 and the driver of the getaway van

was a Mr D Lanyon (with the help of another rogue!)

20 December 2003

Arthur to Laytes

Threat 14 (407+3)

The till money is mine as well .. return it before 31 Dec otherwise it is theft…… D Arthur had counted the


till money on 2 November 2001. D Arthur and J Layte agreed to pay the shop assistant £76  she said


were wages due from the till money and it was also agreed that J Layte would take home the remainder

7 and 8

"for safe keeping", together with a few other items belonging to the tenant. Mr Lanyon witnessed this.

(Mr Lanyon was employed by D Arthur and J Layte as a witness and was paid a fire extinguisher

and a ladder belonging to the tenant but apparently D Arthur told him  they would have to be returned

should the tenant ever settle the rent arrears) See 27 June 2002 letter above.

Subsequently the tenants asked Mr Arthur as to what had happened to their last days takings?

Mr Arthur replied he had given it to the shop assistant and assumed she would have paid it into the

tenants bank account. In other words the shop assistant stole your money. Now it is (J?) Layte that

is stealing it.

02 January 2004

Order Judge Thomas

Order 19

Claim stayed to enable parties to attempt settlement by 13 Feb 2004 or all parties file allocation

questionnaire by 27 February 2004 (see 14 Jan 2004 and 12 Feb 2004 below)

03 January 2004

Arthur to Layte

Letter  (422+3)

Mr Everard is ready to complete.  It is inappropriate he should pay any interest owed for late completion !

14 January 2004

Layte to Arthur

Letter  (426+1)

The Arthurs should never have instigated this litigation. Laytes costs to-date are £37,166.69 and will settle at that

19 January 2004

Layte Application

Application 11

Application for payout of at least £100,000 of the proceeds of sale held by the Court (£132,000 ish)

25 January 2004

J Layte arrested by DC Exelby


J Layte arrested and subsequently interviewed (444) about the alleged theft of a fabric rolling machine

J Layte points out that (in his view) the Laytes own half of this machine, it is worth very

little, he was perfectly entitled to remove it, he removed it when he did because vacant possession

was required and he believed the shop had been sold (321), he thinks Recorder Parish's judgement

followed by addendum can be interpreted many ways but one thing is consistent throughout... it only

ever refers to stock and the fabric rolling machine is not stock as the shop did not sell them. The

police decide that no crime has been committed (442) and release J Layte but insists he sign a

PACE NOTICE (443) which will prevent him selling this machine until either he or D Arthur brings a civil

action to determine ownership. J Layte not happy about the PACE notice that will mean he has to

dry store this thing indefinitely as he will never (himself) bring a civil action over something that

is worth very little and he doubts that Arthur will either because Arthur is sailing very close to the wind

already as regards vexatious litigation. (Wrong ..he did ). J Layte suggests the police store it until ownership

is decided but they won't do that for the same reason he does not want to (it is about the size of a car

by the way ! ) J Layte tells the police he will sell it regardless of the PACE notice and pay Arthur half.

The police (DS Cook) threaten J Layte with prosecution if he disobeys the PACE notice. J Layte instigates a

complaint to the police regarding them issuing a PACE (which is a criminal notice) AFTER they have

determined that no crime had been committed (before signing it J Layte had insisted the words "and

may be stolen" be crossed out and initialled. It was). J Layte complains about the police issuing a PACE

notice to (Sgt?) Mc Kelvey(?) at Falmouth police station. Sgt Mc Kelvey refused to allow J Layte to record the

interview. J Layte complained about the PACE notice and the fact that DC Exelby had arrested J Layte

without allowing him to explain why he had removed the jointly owned fabric rolling machine from our

jointly owned shop when J Layte had VOLUNTARILY attended Camborne station to explain. Regarding

the arrest please also refer to IPCC correspondence 31 Jan 2005 most paragraphs of which are obvious

nonsense. (see annotated) few days later (see police correspondence) Sgt Mc Kelvey phones J Layte and

states J Layte must fill in a new complaint form as he had inadvertently used an "out of date form" form. J Layte

suggests Sgt Mc Kelvey transfer the complaint to the new form post it to J Layte and he will then sign

and return it but  Sgt Mc Kelvey then claims he has spilt coffee on it and it is unreadable (yeah!). A "new"

interview is arranged at J Layte's home address. Sgt Mc Kelvey attends and (reluctantly) allows the interview

to be recorded. (which it was ). Unlike at Falmouth Sgt Mc Kelvey now states J Layte cannot complain

about a PACE notice. He must complain about a police officer. J Layte complains about DC Exelby who

arrested J Layte within two minutes of his voluntary attending Camborne police station to explain

there is more to this fabric rolling machine and Arthur allegation than meets the eye. At a subsequent

interview with DS Cook J Layte learns that D Arthur had also implicated D Lanyon in the theft.

(later denied by D Arthur see 1 May Letter below) J Layte points out to the police that D Arthur's

statement that he had not visited the shop between 1 Jan 2003 and 19 Dec 2003 is not true as

a simple check of police records would have revealed there had been a break-in at the shop on

9 Sept 2003 and D Arthur and a police officer (PC Silver) attended. J Layte expresses his surprise that in

view of the seriousness of D Arthur's allegation (J Layte and D Lanyon have "stolen" his £6000 machine)

the police did not check D Arthur's story. The police must have checked what J Layte said was true

and got back to D Arthur who in his subsequent 4 November 2004 Application admits that he actually first

noticed the machine missing on 9 September 2003. For the record J Layte pointed out to the police in

February 2004 the reason D Arthur did not report "his" fabric rolling machine missing on 9 September

2003 was because the Laytes had asked for permission to appeal the counterclaim judgement (which

very arguably awards the M/C to Arthur) and it was not known in September 2003 whether permission

would be granted or refused. In fact Arthur did not know the Laytes permission to appeal had been

refused until about 10 November 2003 following which he fired off his 25 November 2003 letter (405)

However the Laytes requested a hearing at the Court of Appeal and it was not until he knew on about

the 10 December 2003 that the Laytes had also been refused permission at the hearing he informed

the police of the theft on 19 December 2003. The next day he writes to the Laytes regarding the theft

of the till money (see 20 December letter (407)). What Mr Arthur did not know was that J Layte had initiated

an appeal to the House of Lords via the Court of appeal and at the time of his arrest no reply had been

received (permission to appeal "again" was given by the Court of appeal on 07 June 2004) J Layte chose not

to appeal again in the hope that D Arthur would settle but instead (November 2004) he amended his "Claim"

and added the return of "his" fabric rolling machine to it (Head 23) and then made a separate Application

for it's return citing the PACE notice as an indication that the police believed his story.

4 February 2004

J Layte to D Arthur (CC police)

Letter (445)

The fabric rolling machine is a jointly owned item. J Layte could not steal it. The Judge was only referring

to STOCK and in particular "old unfashionable and musty smelling stock" There was very little in

the shop which matched that description. Please return our half of the rest or its cash equivalent





Feb-Dec 2004

J Layte to police & IPCC


J Layte is very unhappy that following his "arrest" on unknown/unconfirmed reasons the police issue

a PACE notice that prevents J Layte selling an item he believes he owns part of. J Layte complains

firstly that a PACE notice has been issued when the police acknowledge no crime has been committed

(because  And may well be "stolen" is signed as removed) and secondly this is biased as Mr (&Mrs) Arthur

also own part of it and they have NOT been issued with a PACE notice. J Layte's concern is that Mr Arthur

may well use this bias to continue the litigation (ie the police are on his side as to ownership) and J Layte will be

obliged to store a machine for an unknown period for which the storage costs will probably outweigh the value

Because of the police bias Mr Arthur was so encouraged and did indeed continue the litigation in October 2004 

and J Layte did have to store the fabric rolling machine until then. ( see Arthur Application October 2004 (head 22)

and November 2004). The police did withdraw the PACE notice (3/12/2004) after the Applications and before the

hearings/trial but this was too little too late and caused the Laytes a great deal of expense defending a

worthless claim which Mr Arthur would not have made without the "backing" of the police. J Layte complained

about the PACE notice. If the police had withdrawn it earlier (before Mr Arthur made the Applications) a great

deal of police/court/layte/Arthur time would have been saved. J Layte's concerns regarding the Pace notice

and its likely effect on extant Civil litigation is expressed in many letters to the police  7 December 2004

being one example.

03 December 2004

police to J Layte

Letter  (440)

police finally withdraw PACE notice after a great deal of correspondence





22 January 2004

Order Judge Thomas

Order 20

Considering dealing with Layte application without a hearing. Representations to Court before 13 Feb

8 February 2004

Arthur to Layte

Letter  (60+3)

Latest "accounts" plus a document purporting to be a statement of Mr Everard to be used as evidence.

9 February 2004

Layte to Arthur

Letter  (487)

We do not agree that your accounts are accurate nor do we agree with the "statement" (see (64+2))

10 February 2004

D Arthur to Judge Thomas


I object to the Defendants Application to pay out the proceeds of sale (held in Court due to Arthur claim)

Among other things they have stolen my fabric rolling machine

12 February 2004

Arthurs to Laytes

Threat 15 (411+7)

CPR 36 offer from Arthur's … The Laytes owe the Arthur's £95,657.87 but as they are such reasonable

and honest people they will accept £56,000 (or £50,000 + the fabric rolling machine). It ends with the

usual Arthur threat of litigation. (Continued litigation in this case).

(obviously encouraged by the police PACE notice the fabric tolling machine is mentioned)



14 February 2004

D Arthur to PC Carveth

Letter  (439)

Crime 611 19/12/03 J Layte has stolen my fabric rolling machine and lied to you...he must be prosecuted

20 February 2004

D Arthur to DC Exelby

Letter  (436+2)

Crime 611 19/12/03 J Layte is a liar to suggest he owns 25% of the fabric rolling machine.

19 February 2004

Order Judge Thomas

Order 21

(despite protests from Mr Arthur) the Court WILL deal with Layte's application (to pay out) without hearing

Mr Arthur must appeal this Order (he did)

26 February 2004

D Arthur to Judge Thomas


Further objections to paying out and an accusation that Judge Thomas is biased and the Defendants are

(as ever!) refusing to co-operate (that means refusing to agree to pay Arthur £56,000 and/or waste another

£1500 or so on mediation which is not binding and because Arthur and Layte very unlikely to agree a waste of money

10 March 2004

Order Judge Thomas

Order 22

Court to pay out all proceeds of sale 25% to each party after 28 April. Period to appeal this order to

expire 4.00 pm 14 April 2004

14 April 2004

Arthur appeal

Appeal 3

Arthur's object to paying out proceeds of sale. Laytes will be encouraged to settle out Court in Arthur's

favour if the funds are retained. Laytes have seized a valuable machine (the fabric rolling machine) It is mine

by virtue of the counterclaim Judgement and they refuse to give it back

Mediation should be ordered. ( Arthur attempt to starve the Laytes into submission !!)

09 May 2004

Order Judge Overend

Order 23

Permission to appeal be listed for 17 June 2004 at Plymouth. Laytes need not attend.

07 June 2004

Civil Appeals Office to J Layte

Letter  (200)

Lord Justice Ward having read J Layte's letters The Civil Appeals Office suggest making an application

on the enclosed N244 Form. New evidence and Taylor v Lawrence is mentioned. On discussing this with

Mr D Hendy of the Civil Appeals Office he confirmed that there was no time limit on making such an

application and because of this and the fact that Mr Arthur would most likely settle out of Court rather

than continue the litigation (we thought!) it was agreed to wait and see what would happen.

16 June 2004



Permission to Appeal Hearing to be at Torquay 17 June 2004 (adjourned by D Arthur we learn due to backache)

23 June 2004



The 17 June Hearing has been adjourned (because Mr Arthur could not attend due to backache)

new hearing date to be 28 July at Plymouth.

10 July 2004

Layte application

Application 12

To strike out Arthur claim because Arthur has not filed his allocation questionnaire by the due date

of 27 February 2004 as ordered by Judge Thomas 2 January 2004 + his claim has no merit as it stands

13 July 2004



Layte Application to strike out to be heard at the same hearing as Arthur Appeal 28 July at Plymouth

28 July 2004

Hearing Judge Overend

Hearing 14

Attended by K & J Layte and Mr Arthur (painfully apparently …. due to backache)

28 July 2004

Order Judge Overend

Order 24

(1) Arthur Claim to be dismissed unless he files allocation questionnaire by 4.00pm 4 August 2004

(2) Arthur appeal allowed to the extent that all be paid out save for the sum of £7,500 (because of the fabric rolling M/C)

(3) Arthur half costs Layte full costs

11 August 2004

Order Judge Thomas

Order 25

Transfer to Truro. At the hearing of 15 August 2003 Judge Thomas remarked that "he thought

Mr Arthur's litigation was driven by his arrogance ... and that Mr Arthur created controversy when

none need be" Mr Arthur's letter to the Lord Chancellor Department of 15 August and his subsequent

suggestion that Judge Thomas's orders are biased towards the Laytes has meant Judge Thomas

thinks it prudent to no longer be involved by transferring from Penzance (where he normally presides)

17 August 2004

Notice of transfer


As a result of the Order of 11 August the Claim has been transferred from Penzance to Truro

20 August 2004

Court to Arthur and Layte


Monies can now be paid out as a result of Order of 28 July 2004

03 September 2004

Order Judge Griggs

Order 26

Arthur to file/serve proposed amended pleadings by 4 pm 22 September 2004 (he didn't)

12 October 2004

Order Judge Griggs

Order 27

Unless Arthur files/serves proposed amended pleadings by 4 pm 26 October 2004 Claim struck out

26 October 2004

Arthur "amended" Claim

Application 13

D Arthur files amended claim and serves on Laytes personally at 3.40 PM 26 October having carefully

avoided the man trap in front of J Layte's letterbox (typing error ... sorry JL)

28 October 2004



Notice of transfer to Penzance

01 November 2004



Notice of transfer back to Truro

04 November 2004

Arthur Application

Application 14

Return Fabric rolling machine within 14 days or pay £5,730 plus costs. Recorder Parish awarded me

all the property at the shop not just the stock. I first noticed the fabric rolling machine missing on

9 September and the disappearance was reported to the police (when though ?)

03 December 2004

police to J Layte

Letter  (440)

police finally withdraw PACE notice after a great deal of correspondence from J Layte

04 November 2004

Order Judge Griggs

Order 28

Directions hearing ordered for 17 Jan 2005 re proposed amended claim and 4 Nov Application

17 January 2005

Order Judge Mitchell

Order 29

Arthur amended claim allowed ..various directions dates (most not met for a variety of reasons)

17 January 2005

2 nd Order Judge Mitchell

Order 30

Arthur 4 Nov Application (fabric rolling machine) be listed before Recorder Parish 10 Feb Exeter

09 February 2005

Order by the Court

Order 31

10 Feb hearing cancelled .. unfortunately Arthur has cancelled his phone no. without informing the

Court of his new one so the Court could not contact him nor did they phone us despite being aware

that post would not arrive in time. J Layte's phone no is listed and there are only a couple of other

Laytes in the phone book.

10 February 2005

Hearing Recorder Parish

Hearing 15

D Arthur+K & J Layte attended Exeter Court (210 miles) only to learn the hearing had been cancelled

14 February 2005

Layte amended defence + Part 20


Defence to amended claim filed but not to Fabric rolling M/C part of the claim (item 23 of the "Claim")

(A90 - A97)

The Laytes think it a separate issue and should have been entered by Arthur as a new claim against

only J Layte with the appropriate fee being paid by Arthur to the Court (his claim is that it is worth

£6000) J Layte would then have entered a defence and appeared in person at any hearings since

neither Laytes are willing to pay a solicitor £150 per hour to claim title to a machine that is

probably worth very little they inform their solicitor that he is not instructed as far as the fabric rolling

machine is concerned and the Laytes will appear in person at any hearings that involve it should

Arthur continue with this litigation. This caused a great deal of confusion at the Court since as far as

they were concerned our solicitors were on the record as regards Arthur's Claim and the fabric

rolling M/C was part of the Claim. The Laytes view was, and remains, that it should not have been

part of a claim against both Laytes when Arthur was aware that only J Layte (and D Lanyon) were

involved in "stealing" it as he had not reported K Layte to the police.

16 February 2005

Court to Layte solicitor


Should Recorder Parish deal with the FRM Application because of the word "stock" --> Representations

within seven days ....YES (D Arthur) Academic (J Layte)

21 February 2005

D Arthur to Truro Court


I have not received any evidence from the Defendants (strange as 220 pages served by hand on 14 January 2005)

J Layte is trying to deceive the police and possibly a Judge with the word "stock" thus I request Recorder Parish

(who was the original (Counterclaim) trial Judge) who will not be so deceived.

22 February 2005

J Layte to Truro Court


Hancock Caffin are not instructed re fabric rolling machine but they are regarding the main Claim and it is

unfortunate that D Arthur has included the FRM in the main Claim (2 Defendants) whereas the fabric rolling

machine only concerns 1 defendant. Note: enclosed with letter is a chronology of events surrounding the fabric

rolling machines removal and a letter from Hancock Caffin confirming they are not instructed. The value of the

fabric rolling machine is very unlikely to exceed the cost of removal and storage.

28 February 2005

Arthur defence to part 20 above

Defence to p20

(A98) Arthur files a defence to Laytes (solicitors) counterclaim (that requested an account be taken)

Despite signed as the truth paragraphs 1 and 2 are not the truth The Laytes have often requested copies of the
"accurate, true and complete accounts" Arthur mentions in his first Defence to Counterclaim paragraph 4. He
refuses to supply any copies (mainly because he can't ... not one page of "accounts" have ever been supplied)
The 27 August 2005 letter requesting Mr Arthur supply copies of any accounts was not answered as was the
case with all previous and subsequent requests

14 March 2005

Order for hearing

Order 32

Arthur Application of 4 Nov (Fabric rolling M/C) before Recorder Parish 27 April at Truro (same Judge as before)

27 April 2005

Hearing Recorder Parish

Hearing 16

Arthur tells Judge the fabric rolling m/c probably worth £10.(446 (215.5))  Arthur says he reported it stolen to the


police on 9 Sept 2003 (446(215.3)) (Crime ref 839 9 Sept 2003 "Break-in Westcountry Fabrics 52 Fore Street


Redruth"). police officer (PC Silver) and D Arthur attend and conclude the Gas Board had broken in (to retrieve

their meter) D Arthur tells Judge that at the time he had no idea who stole it and it was entirely the

fault of the police that it took them nearly five months to determine J Layte was the thief. (Judge believes him!)

D Arthur tells Judge that he did not report the fabric rolling machine stolen in December 2003 as

J Layte alleges. Judge believes D Arthur is telling the truth (once again) and J Layte is not (once again)

Since the hearing the police have written (441) confirming D Arthur did report the fabric

rolling m/c stolen on 19 December 2003 (Crime ref 611 19 December 2003 "theft of fabric rolling

machine") with an internal crime ref of AC/03/5321 and the police officer (PC Silver) who attended the break-in

on 9 September 2003 has since told J Layte that D Arthur did not report anything missing or stolen at the time.

27 April 2005

Transcript (Hearing Judgement)

Transcript (446)

Transcript of 27 April 2005 hearing Judgement re fabric rolling machine.

27 April 2005

Order Recorder Parish

Order 33

Case against K Layte dismissed. Claim against both Laytes dismissed. No Costs (Laytes appeared

in person)

28 April 2005

D Arthur to Laytes (solicitor)


Preserve "our" fabric rolling machine as I will be appealing Recorder Parish's Judgement regarding it (he did

which as appeals take at least three months may delay the trial as FRM also part of trial pleadings).

01 May 2005

D Arthur to D Lanyon

Letter  (428)

I did not tell the police you stole the fabric rolling machine ... I only said you helped J Layte steal it

furthermore since J Layte told (phone) the police officer who attended on 9 September 2003 he had given

a key to Butler (he had as she was a potential buyer and also R Eddy of RS & Murdoch) lots of people

could have had access (i.e. "How was I to know J Layte had stolen it? it could have been anyone)

11 May 2005

Arthur Appeal

Appeal 4

Recorder Parish is mendacious and capricious (i.e. a liar)

Arthur appeal the Order of Recorder Parish re Fabric rolling M/C. The Court did not inform Laytes or

their solicitor that Arthur had appealed in May until September. The reason given was that there was

an argument between Arthur and the Court as to whether Arthur should have paid a fee with his

4 November 2004 Application (see 14 Feb 2005 above for Laytes view on this)

17 May 2005

Hancock Caffin to Arthur

Letter  (429+3)

Requesting specific Disclosure regarding Arthur amended POC (D Arthur denied receiving this at Hearing 17)

27 August 2005 J Layte to D Arthur Letter Please supply copies of the "accurate" accounts you claim to have been supplying us with in your first D to CC

30 August 2005

Layte listing questionnaire filed


(Once again Arthur has not filed his listing questionnaire or paid listing fee by the due date)

30 August 2005 Laytes to Arthur and Court File and Serve Laytes supply disclosure list of evidence documents numbers 1-314 (Arthurs did not request any copies)
30 August 2005 Laytes to Arthur and Court File and Serve Laytes supply disclosure list of evidence documents numbers 315-594 (Arthurs did not request any copies)

30 August 2005

Layte (solicitor) application

Application 15

Seeking Arthur disclosure as per Hancock Caffin letter of 17 May 2005

07 September 2005

Order Judge Overend

Order 34

Arthur Appeal to be placed before Hon Justice Steel at Royal Courts of Justice London

08 September 2005

Order Judge Griggs

Order 35

Layte (solicitor) application to be heard 28 September

Arthur's failure to file pre-trial check list to be dealt with at the same time

28 September 2005

Arthur Application

Application 16

Arthur Application of June 2003 restored for 28 September 2005 hearing

28 September 2005

Hearing Judge Mitchell

Hearing 17

Arthur claims he did not receive Hancock Caffin 17 May letter (429) requiring disclosure of evidence in

support of his amended Claim. Judge points out that D Arthur is holding a copy of the letter he did not receive

in his hand. Arthur claims Laytes are withholding Barclays documents.

28 September 2005

Order Judge Mitchell

Order 36

Arthur ordered to disclose evidence as per 17 May Hancock Caffin letter. Laytes ordered to disclose

Barclays documents. Both by 4 Pm 11 Oct 2005. Witness statements by 4 PM 1 November 2005

5 October 2005

J Layte to Arthurs

Letter  (452+5)

Suggested modus operandi regarding Disclosure, inspection and preparation of trial bundle etc. This letter was

posted recorded delivery and also  delivered by hand to the Arthurs but the recorded delivery was refused

and the hand delivery was returned un-opened thus no agreement was made.

10 October 2005

Court letter


Arthur has not filed his listing questionnaire or paid the listing fee

10 October 2005

Layte to Arthur + Court

File and serve

Layte additional list of documents filed. The list was served on Arthurs by hand delivery to Kennall Vale

Mill and also recorded delivery post to PO Box 42 Truro.

11 October 2005

Order Judge Mitchell

Order 37

Arthur to pay the listing fee by 4 pm 25 October 2005

11 October 2005

Arthur to K Layte


Arthur returns the hand delivered list of documents unopened.

14 October 2005

Arthur to Laytes

Service (?)

A letter (433+2) is delivered (dated 11 October 2005 postmarked 13 October) and some 54 pages of documents

(most of which have already been disclosed) There is no list included.

17 October 2005

Arthur to Laytes

Threat 16  (460)

The Arthurs have complied with the 28 September 2005 Order ..The Laytes have not!!!

Unless the Laytes post Arthur another copy of disclosure lists by 19 October 2005 the Arthurs will litigate

18 October 2005 Layte to Arthur Letter  (459) Reply to Arthur 17 October letter sent by recorded delivery on 20 October  2005 together with a 17 October
Disclosure list and a CD containing copies. This letter was also refused and was returned by Royal Mail
on 11 November 2005
21 October 2005 Arthur to Layte Letter  (458) Arthur has rejected the last three Recorded Delivery letters
18 October 2005 Order Hon Justice Steel

Order 38

Arthur permission to Appeal refused (Dated 25 September 2005)
18 October 2005 Notice of trial date Notice Trial 21 November Bodmin
19 October 2005 Order Judge Mitchell

Order 39

October 11  Order rescinded if D Arthur paid the listing fee on 23 May 2003
24 October 2005 D Arthur to Truro Court


As I said in my Appeal Recorder Parish is a liar (Appeal not heard yet)
30 October 2005 Arthur on Layte

Service (474)

A Witness Statement purporting to be made by Mr Everard is sent by D Arthur. Unsure if this
is genuine J Layte writes to Mr Everard for assurance (473)  No reply has been received from Mr Everard
as of 15 November 2005 (however see meeting 24 March 2006 below)
31 October 2005 J and K Layte

Service (by hand)

Witness Statements served on Arthur and Filed at Court (see trial Bundle A230-A253)
31 October 2005 J and K Layte

Service (RD post)

A second copy of above witness statements and about 50 pages of previous correspondence posted/delivered to
Mr & Mrs Arthur that they had refused to accept or ignored. This letter was refused and returned (see below)
1 November 2005 D Arthur to J Layte


D Arthur refuses to accept the above posted 31 October 2007 bundle and it is returned as refused by Royal Mail
4 November 2005 J Layte to D Arthur Letter We have served our witness statements by hand with several letters you have previously refused and we
require these documents from you.
7 November 2005 D Arthur to Laytes


The Laytes have not served (what they say are) their witness statements properly nevertheless I will accept
them as served this time on 3 November 2005 (three days after serving and two days after 1 November, the
date by which time they were ordered to be served). However a few days later Mr Arthur changed his mind
and returned our witness statements un-opened (see 20 November (about) below)
15 November 2005

Trial Bundle

CD+Hardcopy of No further entries on this CD after this point. All correspondence after 7 November 2005 was included in
    1 Bundle A . the trial bundle in hard copy only. All attempts to serve the trial bundle, which included this CD up to
    2 Bundle B1 15 November, on Mr & Mrs Arthur failed but a copy (including the CD) was filed at Bodmin Court by the due date
    3 Bundle B2 (see various correspondence (462 - 484) below and (485 - 532)
Various correspondence October - November

(462 - 484)

In trial bundle but not on the CD version filed on 15 November 2005 (but now included (5/7/06)
Various correspondence October - November

(485 - 532)

In trial bundle but not on the CD version filed on 15 November 2005 (but now included (17/12/07)
18 November 2005 Arthur to Laytes


Supplementary witness statement served just before the trial (should have exchanged on 1 November )
20 November (about) D Arthur to K Layte by hand


D Arthur returns our witness statements (and enc letters) by hand (un-opened) to K Layte's home address
21-23 November 2005 Trial Recorder Harrap

Hearing 18

Mr Arthur starts off by telling the Judge "I don't know why we are here I have made several generous offers to
      settle and the Laytes have refused them all" (in fact the Arthurs have made two offers to settle both of
      which involved the Laytes paying the Arthurs substantial sums whereas the Laytes and or their solicitors have
      made six offers to settle involving the Arthurs paying the Laytes. no agreement on either side). Mr Arthur
      then attempted his expected "trick" of stating that "the Laytes have refused to agree a trial bundle and he
      requested his former trial bundle be used as he assumed it was still in the Court file". It is normally the
      responsibility for Claimants to prepare a trial bundle but as the Laytes have previously been tricked by
      Arthur they have prepared the trial bundle and already filed it at Court (we attempted to serve it on Mr Arthur
      but he had refused to accept it. The Judge decides to use the trial bundle supplied by the Laytes at which
      point Mr Arthur states he will abandon his Claim. The Judge suggests that Mr Arthur should agree a
      settlement figure in the Laytes favour. The Laytes and Mr Arthur leave the Court to attempt this but
      Mr Arthur refuses to even speak. On return Mr Arthur  stated he will abandon his Claim with the exception
      of item 1 in order to reserve costs.

1.0     By an oral agreement (the agreement) made between the claimants and defendants


on diverse dates in early 1988 it was agreed to pool the claimants' property and project

      management skills with the defendants' building and maintenance skills to form a partnership
      or otherwise to acquire premises for redevelopment. The essence of the agreement was
      that the "white collar" work was the claimants' and the "blue collar" the defendants'. the only
      express terms of the agreement were:-
              1.1   the claimants are solely responsible for negotiation, conveyancing and all
               legal matters, planning, technical, architectural, building control, drawing and other
               administration and property management functions
               1.2  the defendants are solely responsible for building and maintenance work
               1.3  net revenue is apportioned to the parties in equal shares
      The Judge pointed out to Mr Arthur that even if he found for him on this single issue he would not win the Claim
      Mr Arthur insisted that he wished this item to be heard and 3 days were spent discussing whether or not we had
      verbally agreed specific roles in the partnership .. that is Mr Arthur was to be the "brains" and we were solely the builders
Mr Arthur stated his witness witness (Mr Everard) had refused to appear at Court  (not true according to Mr Everard)
Mr Arthurs main gripe appeared to be that we had tricked him into becoming involved with the purchase of the
two properties for redevelopment and after purchase had refused to develop them in they way he (and Mrs Arthur)
      had suggested. Our view was that the properties were purchased because they were good value (cheap!) and there
      was no agreed development plans  before purchase other than the possibility that 52 Fore street (the shop) could
      be converted into a wine bar if planning and a licence could be obtained and that 3/4 Station hill could be used by
      the Laytes and the Arthurs as a base for their respective businesses. Mr Arthur was unable to convince the Judge
      that his version of the so called "oral agreement" was as he claimed "the properties were purchased solely for
      development" (because there was no written evidence to support this opinion) and the Laytes could only supply
      a few written documents that suggested otherwise (the main one being Mr Arthur's own document of 19 April 1988
      which mentions the wine bar and that 'developing' properties to broaden our respective property interest and/or
      business interests. Since the trial a further document written by Mr Arthur in 1988/9 has come to light (March 2008)
      that seems to support the Laytes view of the partnership aims at the time and contradicts Mr Arthurs view that
      an oral agreement solely to develop the properties ever existed and that the Claimants main claim item is false
At the end of the trial, because there was not enough time left to hear it, and because Mr Arthur volunteered before
the Judge that he would repay the suspicious transfer from our partnership account to his own (plus interest he said)
if he had made an "error" we agreed to drop our counterclaim (that an account be taken) To date (March 2008) he
has refused to discuss this and other outstanding issues .. (including the outstanding issues about £35,000 is involved).
Recorder Harrap finds no evidence to suggest Mr Arthur is telling the truth about the parties
specific roles and is less than impressed with Mr Arthur's testimony and makes a costs Order in
      the Layte's favour. Recorder Harrap briefly explains what costs can be claimed and how to claim them
      On leaving the Court J Layte in conversation with Mr Arthur expresses his concern that to employ costs
      draftsmen would be very expensive in view of the vast amount of "correspondence" etc this litigation has
      generated (Guinness book of records candidate according to Recorder Harrap). Mr Arthur suggests he is
      amenable to agreeing costs between ourselves without the expense of costs draftsmen.
24 Novermber 2005 Order Recorder Harrap

Order 40

Costs order against Arthurs 42                        


Go to Post November Trial Chronology