Arthur -v- Layte PZ 200604

Documents to November 2009 (as supplied to the Court of Appeal)

JH Layte 2004-2010  ...  No part of this CD may be re-produced or transmitted by any means without prior permission in writing from JH Layte

ALL FILES AND DOCUMENTS ON THIS CD E&OE AS OF DATE BELOW

 

  TRURO POLICE VERSION (July 2010) 

Post Trial Chronology

November 2005 - November 2009

Attempts to agree costs and outstanding issues

The dates that the various Bills of Costs have been served or filed are highlighted blue thus 8 March 2007     

The bills served (and filed) since 8 March 2007 are in essentially the same form as served on 8 March 2007

 

DATE

WHO

WHAT

                     EXPLANATION

21-23 November 2005 Recorder Harrap Trial verdict Recorder Harrap finds no evidence to suggest Mr Arthur is telling the truth about the parties
Hearing 19 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
25 November 2005 J Layte to Court Fax I would like to inspect the witness statement of Mr Everard that Mr Arthur told the Judge he had filed it at
0 Truro Court "ages ago" (The Laytes are of the opinion that Mr Arthur has created this Witness statement on
Mr Everard's behalf and the signature on the copy he has supplied to us looks to be a forgery thus
we wish to inspect the live signature that Mr Arthur told the Judge was on the copy he filed at Court)
3 December 2005 D Arthur to K Layte Letter I will be appealing the Order of 24 November because J Layte is asking awkward questions about
Mr Everard's witness statement.
5 December 2005 Court to J Layte Letter Permission to inspect Court file not given. Please state which files you require a copy of
10 December 2005 Arthur to Laytes Letter Enclosing a copy of a 7 November 2005 letter to the Court purporting to file Mr Everard's Statement on that date
16 December 2005 J Layte to Court Fax I wish to have a copy of Mr Everard's Witness Statement that Mr Arthur now claims he had filed 7 November 2005.
4 January 2006 Truro Court to J Layte

Letter

We can find no trace of  "Mr Everard's" witness statement Mr Arthur claims to have filed. (well I never)
17 February 2006 JL to Court of Appeal

Phone call

Mr Arthur has now asked for permission to appeal but has not asked for Costs to be stayed .. suggest Bill of Costs is served.
20 February 2006 Laytes to Arthurs+Court Letter +Fax Bill served. Please do as you volunteered in Court (summary of bill of costs included)
23 February 2006 Court to Laytes Letter Serve Bill of Costs on form N252 If no points of dispute apply for Default Costs Cert fee 45. File after POD received.
28 February 2006 Laytes to Arthur + Court Notice Notice of commencement + full bill of costs. Points of dispute by 23 March (bill of costs to Arthur ONLY
as Court instruct not to file a copy at Court) See 23 February 2006 letter in which the Court confirm that the
bill should be SERVED on the paying party and FILED once points of dispute are received.
2 March 2006 Arthur to Laytes

Appeal 5

Letter enclosing an application for permission to appeal
24 March 2006 J Layte and Mr D Everard

Meeting

Meeting  between Mr DT Everard at 52 Fore street. JL confirms that D Arthur has appealed the Trial Order
that D Everard had allegedly refused to appear at in support of his alleged witness statement. D Everard denies
he refused to appear at the trial (blames Arthur) but confirms the witness statements supplied by Arthur to
the Laytes are genuine and composed/signed by himself but can't remember what he stated in them and refuses
to confirm they are genuine in writing. D Everard confirms that he and Mrs Arthur had agreed a price on
Murdoch day 2000 (as his "draft" witness statement states). D Everard states that in his view J Layte only
wanted to sell to Butler and Layte's solicitor did not tell him that Butler had offered 105k in March 2003
(outbidding his 100k). J Layte points out that Layte's solicitor did inform Arthur of the 105K bid and
Arthur was in contact with Everard's solicitor and told him not to have anything to do with Layte's solicitor
see 2003 correspondence 11 March, 12 March , 13 March, 14 March(1), 14 March (2), 14 March (3)
20 March and 31 March  .......Maybe Mr Arthur did not tell Mr Everard what he was doing?
27 March 2006 Layte to Court

Letter

Request for Default Costs certificate plus fee
7 April 2006 Court to Arthur

Order 41

Default Cost Certificate issued by Court with Judge Mitchell's knowledge as the Defendant's request for it
had been referred to him.
12 April 2006 Court of Appeal to Laytes

letter

Arthur's Appeal (of the 23 November 2005 trial order awarding Defendants costs) will be heard 8 May 2006
21 April 2006 Arthur to Court

Application 18

Dated 11 April 2006 Set aside all Orders (Laytes unaware of this Application as Arthur did not inform at the
time and the Court did not inform until about a month later)
24 April 2005 Laytes to Court

letter

No payment has been forthcoming from Mr Arthur
4 May 2006 Court to Arthur

letter

Please supply information regarding your application
8 May 2006 Court of Appeal LJ Moore-Bick

Hearing 20

Arthur permission to appeal (Laytes did not attend so goodness knows what was said)
9 May 2006 Court of Appeal

Order 42

Arthur permission to appeal refused.
9 May 2006 Arthur to Court

letter

Answers to 4 May letter (?)
15 May 2006 Judge Mitchell

Order 43

Mr Arthurs letter to be dealt with by written representation by 2 June 2006 4:PM
30 May 2006 Arthur to Judge Mitchell

Letter

We were in sole control   (not according to us and the Judge) .... Judge Mitchell and Judge
Thomas perverted the course of justice .. Arthur hopes they will not do so again.
1 June  2006 Laytes to Arthur and Court

Service

Written representation (served by hand to both Arthur + Court 1 June 2006) ... Only to find
Parked (very close) in front of the service letter box was the Arthur's Alfa Romeo car and Mrs Arthur, N Arthur
(daughter) and child (grand daughter?) nearby. Rather odd as they feared for their life because of the mad Defendant
mentioned in paragraph 3 of D Arthur's witness statement supporting the appeal of the costs Order of 23 November 2005 (see comment on this in subsequent 11 July 2006 letter)
2 June 2006 J Layte to Truro Court

Fax

Fax certificate of service regarding representations regarding 11 April Application served by hand at Kennall
vale mill with a witness
2 June 2006 Judge Mitchell

Order 44

Default Costs certificate is set aside
2 June 2006 J Layte to Court

Fax

Please wait until our written representations 2  are made on 5 June (Monday) before making 
an Order
5 June 2006 Laytes to Judge Mitchell

Fax

Written representations 2 ... however Judge Mitchell had taken no notice of our previous
fax and had already made the Order
30 June 2006 Laytes to Arthur

letter (1page)

It will be very expensive to prepare a bill to CPR. You have another 21 days to raise
points of dispute. Prefer to attempt agreement without Court ..Meeting? Please reply
by return   (Posted first class only .. no reply or acknowledgement received)
4 July 2006 Laytes to Judge Mitchell

letter (5page)

This litigation is vexatious to cause the Laytes as much expense as possible and then to avoid paying any costs
CC  Judge Thomas Encs It is impractical, expensive, and very long winded to prepare a bill to CPR. It will take months and as we suspect
        Recorder Harrap This CD to date Mr Arthur to avoid paying we require a Court Order that Mr Arthur pay a deposit of 55k before we start etc
        Recorder Parish Photo of evidence
        Judge Overend and tapes No response from Arthurs or anybody else other than Lord Justice Ward/ the times and Judge Mitchell (later)
        Lord Justice Ward reduced the requirement from "exactly" CPR compliant to "approximating" to CPR
        DJ & A Arthur (RD Refused)
        The Lord Chancellor
        The Attorney General
        The West Briton
        The Times
        BBC
        Channel 4
        Hancock Caffin
        Walsh & Co
11 July 2006 J Layte to D Arthur (RD) Letter (2 page) Sarcastic attempt at convening a meeting (see Paragraph 3 of D Arthur Appeal witness statement)
The Police were informed about Arthur's attempt to cause a "confrontation" on 1 June 2007 when the very
family Mr Arthur "feared for the safety of" positioned themselves at the service delivery area that J Layte
was certain to attempt service. The Police advice was not to deliver documents by hand especially if a
witness was not present. On this occasion there was a witness and no confrontation took place.
Without a witness it would have been the Arthur's word (3-4 of them) against J Layte's and Arthur has
tried to "incite" a confrontation with J Layte, D Lanyon, the shop neighbours and C Rouse on previous
occasions. With the neighbours it was successful. They attacked him. Arthur  was arrested. Arthur was
released and entered a Claim against the neighbours for assault. see A508 , A512 and Claim A520 , A521
17 July 2006 LJ Ward to Laytes letter (1 page) Returning CD and suggestion to obtain legal advise (far too expensive and just what Arthur wants us to do)
17 July 2006 The times to Laytes letter (1 page) Returning CD
17 July 2006 Judge Mitchell to Laytes letter(1 page) No Order is called for (re 55k deposit) Bill in accordance to CPR required
14 August 2006 Laytes to Judge Mitchell Letter (4 page) The situation will not be resolved by CPR compliant bill etc
14 August 2006 Layte to Truro Court Letter (8 page) Request for a new Default Costs Certificate
24 August 2006 Judge Mitchell to Layte Letter (1 page) Default Costs Certificate application refused .. Bill "approximating" to CPR required
30 September 2006 Laytes to Judge Mitchell Letter (6 page) It is all very well to suggest we produce a bill "approximating" to CPR but the Court have not
dealt with this case according to CPR .. Please attempt to resolve this some other way
10 October 2006 Judge Mitchell to Laytes Letter (1 page) Repeat .. what is required is something approximating to CPR
17 November 2006 Laytes to Judge Mitchell cc Arthur Letter (1 page) It is regrettable that you insist we produce a bill approximating to CPR and have not dealt with the
other outstanding issues .. we have started but it is already costly as our charges are already considerable
and will increase still further   (No response from Arthur who was copied this letter or Court)
24 November 2006 Layte to Arthur cc Judge Mitchell Letter (5 page) Final attempt to arrange a meeting to resolve costs and outstanding issues before our already considerable
charges to produce a bill approximating to CPR goes any higher  (No response from Arthur or Court)
Aug 2006-Feb 2007 J + K Layte Bills of Costs Six months reluctantly preparing bills of costs to approximate to CPR in the absence of an alternative
20 February 2007 Layte to Court cc Judge Mitchell Letter (12 page) letter pointing out where our enclosed bills are still not exactly CPR compliant  (and why they are not), Our

+ encs below

charges are already 34K . Request the Court's approval before serving to avoid repetition of what happened

Draft bill J Layte

last time (Arthur claimed he cannot make points of dispute because the bills are not CPR compliant) also

Draft bill K Layte

ask advice concerning hourly rate and VAT

List of Documents

Enclosed with the letter :-
Bill of costs first Defendant J Layte
Bill of Costs second Defendant K Layte
List of documents produced E&OE 22 February 2007   (identical in First and Second Defendants bills)
Plus some letters from Arthurs concerning what hourly rate they charge and VAT in former successful claims
27 February 2007 Judge Mitchell to Laytes

Letter (1 page)

It is not for the Court to approve / disapprove nor give advice, it is up to Arthur in his points of dispute to
challenge hourly rate and VAT. Bills need serving (Bills returned by Court... unknown if copied beforehand?)
       
Feb / March 2007 J Layte to Truro Court

Phone Calls

Due to the perceived (almost) impossibility to serve the bills on Mr & Mrs Arthur Truro Court were consulted
in the hope that they would serve the bills and thus the Court would know what had been served and when.
Unfortunately this was not possible. The Court recommended employing a process server and stated that
the cost would be recoverable. Process servers were consulted but having previously witnessed Mr & Mrs Arthur
dressed in full gorilla suites and only answering to Mr & Mrs Gorilla to avoid such service the open ended
quote of 33 per hour and 50p per mile could end up very expensive and the likelihood of (easily) recovering this
cost from Mr Arthur remote. It was decided first to attempt service of the bills by Recorded delivery mail
backed by a letter posted ordinary first class mail pointing out that the bills were posted by recorded delivery
before employing a process server. It was expected Mr Arthur would refuse the recorded delivery bills and
ignore the first class mail however it turned out he signed for the bills and then denied that they were of
suitable standard and eventually provided the Court with 17 out of the 90 (or so) pages claiming that was
all we had served.
       
7 March 2007 Laytes to Arthur

Letter (17 pages)

Our bills have been posted by Recorded Delivery. You have 21 days to pay the offer to settle all costs and

+ 22 page

outstanding issues or to make points of dispute. (Letter ignored ..Offer not accepted or refused)
List of documents ( One  copy of List of documents produced E&OE 22 February 2007 was also included with this
letter with a request (in the letter) that this be combined with the bills posted by recorded delivery)
7 March 2007 Laytes to Arthur

Letter (17 pages)

Copy of 7 March letter + N252 Notices (signed) + Bills of Costs + Communications list Posted Recorded

+ encs below

Delivery and signed for on 8 March 2007 at Mr & Mrs Arthur's service address (proof of delivery)
8 March 2007 Bill J Layte The bills served were virtually the same as the bills lodged at the Court for approval with  20 February 2007
8 March 2007 Bill K Layte (above) The exceptions being the first and second pages of each bill no longer headed or annotated "DRAFT"
8 March 2007 List of Documents and a mathematical error on page 6 of J Layte's bill had been corrected affecting the total page
March sometime Mr Arthur to Truro Court "The bill filed" The "bill" Mr Arthur filed as was discovered seven months later on being allowed to inspect the Court file.
9 Mar 2007 Arthur to Court

Letter 1 page

Arthur claims he has received something (unsigned Form N252?) but is obviously ignoring the bills
of costs served by recorded delivery as these included signed N242 forms. NB Arthur did not copy
this letter to us but the Court did in their 13 March letter (below) however whatever Mr Arthur had attached
was not also copied (assumed to be the "copy notice of commencement" (N242) mentioned as returned
to Mr Arthur)
13 March 2007 Court to Arthur cc Laytes

Letter (1 page)

Court letter and Arthur letter denying service of bills (Arthur letter copied to Laytes by Court not by Arthur)
13 March 2007 J Layte to Court

Fax (5 pages)

Certificate  of service of N252 notices, 7 March 2007 letter and bills
19 March 2007 Arthur to Court

Letter (1 page)

Attempt to prevent another Default Costs Certificate being issued (Found in Court file 23/10/2007)
26 March 2007 Court to Arthur (CC Laytes)

Letter (2 page)

Assessment has been started and bills served (J Layte FAX of 13/3/07 copied to Arthur by Court)
29 March 2007 Arthur to Court

Letter (1 page)

I know the rules, I have not been served proper bills etc (Found in Court file 23/10/2007)
2 April 2007 Court to K Layte Order 45 Default cost Order J Layte
2 April 2007 Court to J Layte Order 46 Default cost Order K Layte
13 April 2007 Arthur to Court Complaint 1 You have failed to prevent the Laytes obtaining default costs certificate and I claim 369
(for the record the Laytes have no other choice if Arthur refuses to attempt agreement or make points of dispute)
(Found in Court file 23/10/2007)
13 April 2007 Arthur to Laytes Witness statement D Arthur witness statement that later became the only document in support of his 17 April Application
that the Laytes were aware of. Note: The witness statement refers to 4 other documents that should
have been included but were omitted. 2 & 3 are obvious but 1 and 4 are not.
17 April 2007 Court to Arthur Letter (1 page) The correct fee for your (17/4/2007) Application is 65 not 60 (Found in Court file 23/10/2007)
17 April 2007 Court to Arthur Letter (1 page) Further to your (13/4/2007) complaint the Bill clerk states that you were served with a bill of costs and
as you didn't make points of dispute within 21 days a D Costs C was issued (Found in Court file 23/10/2007)
17 April 2007 Arthur Application

Application 19

Arthur Application to set aside the Default costs certificates (note there are documents (1-4) mentioned in
the witness statement but none are included) N.B. Neither Laytes post letter bombs to Mr Arthur although
it is appreciated half of Cornwall would probably like to. (NB Laytes unaware of Application until 4 May) 
22 April 2007 Arthur to Court

Complaint 2

I complain again. (I have not been served a bill of costs) and although your "Bill clerk" says I have I
demand to know his/her name and when he / she witnessed this event (Found in Court file 23/10/2007)
25 April 2007 Court to Arthur

Letter (1 page)

Acknowledgement of complaint. Your Application has been referred to the Judge (Found in Court file 23/10/2007)
2 May 2007 Order Judge Mitchell

Order 47

Arthur Application to be dealt with by (respondents) written representation   by 4pm 23 May 2007
2 May 2007 Arthur to Court

Letter (1 page)

Fee complaint, why won't you send me copies of the bills (I have already signed for) and
various other veiled threats (Found in Court file 23/10/2007)
4 May 2007 J Layte to Court

Phone call

Mr Arthur's Application (just received) is missing documents 1.2.3.4 mentioned as annexed to his
witness statement have the Court received them from Mr Arthur? The Court say they have not received them
and post a second copy of his Application which is just a one page Notice + 3 page witness statement
7 May 2007 (about) Court to J Layte

Letter (4 page) +

Court send 2nd copy of D Arthur 17 April 2007 Application confirming only 4 pages and no extra documents
Compliments slip Compliments slip sent by Truro Court confirming that the Application filed by Mr Arthur on 17 April 2007
and Order consisted ONLY of the application itself and a witness statement (3 pages dated 13 April 2007) and
obviously did not contain any of the documents annexed. When Judge Mitchell came to consider the
application on 5 June 2007 the application had somehow "gained" a further 14 (or so) pages that Mr Arthur
claimed was a true copy of our bills of costs. Mr Arthur was not telling the truth. The bills of costs we had
served on Mr and Mrs Arthur consisted of the 14 pages Mr Arthur provided the Court with plus a
further 80 (or so) pages so it is hardly surprising that Judge Mitchell considered the 14 pages were
not CPR compliant. It is the Defendant's view that Mr Arthur deliberately filed only a minor part of the
bills we had served in order to deceive the Court. Hence the later request to appeal the Order made.
8 May 2007 Court to Arthur

Letter (1 page)

Arthur complaint dated 2 May 2007 acknowledged (Found in Court file 23/10/2007)
17 May 2007 Arthur to Exeter complaints

Letter (1 page)

Rant rant rant (Found in Court file 23/10/2007)
21 May 2007 J Layte to Court

Letter (5 page)

Written representations letter and witness statement mentioning the missing document 4 and requesting
the Application is not decided without a hearing due to this and other matters.
23 May 2007 Arthur to Court

Letter (1+? Pages)

Arthur posts second copy of his 9 March 2007 letter which almost certainly has the missing
document 4 attached (note Court date stamp) (Found in Court file 23/10/2007)
24 May 2007 Arthur to (Jeffrey?) Layte

Letter (1 page)

Arthurs do not accept communications requiring a signature (They do .. eg on 8 March 2007) and
Laytes do not have Arthur's permission to use fax and the e-mail address Arthur has given on
his 17 April Application (info@dishonestjudges.org.uk domain name reserved by DJ Arthur on 3 April 2007)
5 June 2007 Order Judge Mitchell

Order 48

Default Costs Order set aside. Arthur has again obtained an Order to his advantage by supplying a false
evidence (false copy of our bill)  to the Court at such a late date he knows the Court  are unlikely to provide
 the Laytes with acopy in time for them to protest if at all. (The Court did not inform the Laytes of what Arthur filed)
and although the Laytes suspected that Arthur may have filed a bogus copy of their bills they cannot appeal
this Order without proof. Because of the Court's reluctance to reveal what had been filed (supposedly
by the Laytes) it took until 23 October 2007 to obtain this proof and enter an Appeal)
19 June 2007 Order Judge Wainwright

Order 49

(19 June .. drawn 4 July .. received when Laytes returned from holiday 16 July) The Bill as filed
is not CPR compliant. New bills to be served and filed by 23 July 2007
17 July 2007 K Layte to Exeter Court

Letter (1 page)

What costs bill is the Judge referring  to in the 19 June Order (just received)?  please send a copy
20 July 2007 J Layte to Court CC Judge Mitchell

Letter(2 page)

What costs bill is the Judge referring  to in the 19 June Order (just received)?  please send a copy
and Arthurs (by RD)
23 July 2007 J Layte to Truro Court

Fax (4 page)

Please refer 20 July 2007 letter to Judge Mitchell
27 July 2007 J Layte to Judge Mitchell

Letter(1 page)

Please supply a copy of the bill you refer to in your Order of 5 June 2007
cc Judge Wainwright, Arthur (RD)
27 July 2007 Order Judge Wainwright

Order 50

Time for filing CPR compliant bills extended
31 July 2007 D Arthur to Jeffrey Layte

Letter (4 page)

D Arthur returns Royal Mail "sorry you were out" cards. Actually the items were recorded as refused
(since the trial Mr Arthur has addressed a lot of the mail to Jeffrey and Mary Layte rather than John and
Kathryn Layte. This is assumed to be a reference to Jeffrey and Mary Archer and the perjury trial. Since
neither Layte has committed perjury at any time during this litigation (and Mr Arthur has on numerous occasions)
perhaps this is yet another example of Freudian projection?).
1 August 2007 D Arthur to Court cc Laytes

Letter (1 page)

I have not received a new CPR compliant bill from the Laytes by the date it was due.
3 August 2007 Judge Mitchell to J Layte

Letter (1 page)

Reply to 23 and 27 July letters asking what bill Judge Mitchell was referring to in his 5 June Order ....
"I don't remember and the papers are in Exeter anyway don't ask me for advise" (J Layte was asking for
information not advice)
6 August 2007 J Layte to Exeter Court

Fax (4 page)

I cannot comply with any Orders requiring me to improve on an unknown bill. The bills we served
Arthur in March 2007 should consist of the following. If not they are false. Again please supply
me with a copy of the so called filed bills.
8 August 2007 J Layte to A Clarke Exeter Court

Phone call

DJ Wainwright (allegedly) refuses to enter into any more correspondence. If you want to know what is in the Court file
you will have to make an Application to the Court. Her Order of 27 July still stands and I refuse to give you any more
information regarding what bill has been filed other than Judge Wainwright states it is "The bill filed by the Defendant
on 31 May 2006"   (J Layte had not filed anything on 31 May 2007 (I assumed 2007 was meant) and immediately
asked K Layte if she had. She had not)
8 August 2007 K Layte to Court

Letter (1 page)

I have received another Order which does not answer my previous letter of 17 July 2007. I understand a bill has
been filed on 31 May 2007. It was not filed by me. Please send a copy of this bill.
14 August 2007 J Layte to A Clarke Exeter Court

Letter (4 page)

Confirmation of 8 August phone call. Again ..please supply a copy of the bill held on file as neither Defendant
filed anything on 31 May 2007. (assuming Mr Clarke did not mean 2006 as I thought he said in phone call)
13 August 2007 A Clarke Exeter to J Layte

Letter (1 page)

Received on 15 August confirming J Layte phone call and Judge Wainwright's insistence that her Order of
22 July 2007 still stands. Confirms that the filed bill is dated 31 May 2006 (and not 2007 as J Layte had assumed
was meant in the phone call) also confirms that "no further correspondence will be entered into without a specific
Application being made on notice to all parties"
20 August 2007 J Layte to Judge Wainwright

Letter + Fax (9 P)

As we have said we cannot comply with your Orders to improve our bills until the Court send copies of what has
cc Judge Mitchell, Truro Court been filed. We did not file anything on 31 May 2006 and in any case whatever was filed then cannot be
Exeter Court anything like the bills we served on Mr & Mrs Arthur in 2007 for obvious reasons.
21 August 2007 J Layte to A Clarke Exeter Court

Letter + Fax (2 P)

Please supply a copy of the "bill as filed by the Defendants on 31 May 2006" (fee enclosed) and also provide me
with a comprehensive list of all documents filed at the Court since 23 November 2005 stating who filed them & when
21 August 2007 J Layte to Exeter Court

Letter + Fax (4 P)

Please supply a copy of the "bill as filed by the Defendants on 31 May 2006" (fee enclosed) and also provide me
with a comprehensive list of all documents filed at the Court since 23 November 2005 stating who filed them & when
29 August 2007 Exeter Court to Laytes

Letter (3 page)

Exeter Court finally provide a copy of "the bill filed by the Defendants on 31 May 2006" but it bears scant relation to
+ the bills we served Mr Arthur in 2007 other than a heavily "censored" part of one of one of them. The "bill"
"The Bill as filed" provided by the Court is a mixture of documents relating to our 2006 bill + a small part of our 2007 bills. None of
this "bill" was supplied by either Defendant on 31 May 2006 (as the Court claim). The tampered with minor part
of our 2007 bills was lodged (filed) at the Court by Mr Arthur (very probably attached to the second copy of his
9 March 2007 letter received at the Court on 23 May 2007 (the last day written representations were required  for
Mr Arthur's 17 April 2007 Application to set aside the 2007 Default costs certificates). Mr Arthur claims the bill
he lodged (filed) at the Court is all we had served him .... He is not telling the truth
29 August 2007 Order Judge Wainwright

Order 51

(Order dated 15 August drawn 29 August) Defendants to file 2007 bills
1 September 2007 J Layte to Exeter Court

Letter (2 page)

Letter enclosing exact copy of J Layte's  2007 bills of costs as served on Mr & Mrs Arthur on March 8 2007
Letter (17 pages) (served with bills)
Bill J Layte (including "List of documents")
1 September 2007 K Layte to Exeter Court

Letter

Letter enclosing exact copy of K Layte's  2007 bills of costs as served on Mr & Mrs Arthur on March 8 2007
Bill K Layte (including "List of documents")
10 September 2007 Order Judge Wainwright

Order 52

Impossible to comply with Order with a provision 6 that prevents Defendants from varying or setting it aside
12 September 2007 Judge Wainwright to Laytes

Letter (3 page)

Letter pointing out what is wrong with our 2007 bills (we had already pointed most of this out and why we had
prepared them like we had) Judge Wainwright also makes points of dispute thus contradicting her opinion
that Mr Arthur was unable to in March 2007. DJ Wainwright does not criticize the FORM of either of our bills
25 September 2007 J Layte to Exeter Court

E-mail (4 page)

2nd copy of 21 August 2007 letter (above) Please supply a list of  what has been filed by who and when
28 September 2007 J Layte to Exeter Court

Fax (4 page)

3rd copy of 21 August 2007 letter (above) Please supply a list of  what has been filed by who and when
(NB J Layte's 21 Aug 2007 letter requesting what had been filed by whom/when was faxed, posted, and
e-mailed at least 5 times before the Court allowed the file to be inspected in their letter of 19 October 2007
7 October 2007 K Layte to Judge Wainwright

Letter (4 page)

Representations regarding Judge Wainwright's impossible to comply with and unjust Order of 10 September 2007
17 October 2007 J Layte to Judge Wainwright

Letter (14 page)

Representations regarding Judge Wainwright's impossible to comply with and unjust Order of 10 September 2007
cc Judge Mitchell
19 October 2007 Exeter Court to J layte

Letter (1 page)

Court has referred your correspondence of 25 September (actually 2nd+ copy of 21 August correspondence) and
as a result permission to inspect the Court file is given. An arrangement to inspect the Court file was made for
the following day 23 October 2007 (19 October Court letter actually received Monday 22 October. Postal strike time)
23 October 2007 J Layte (travel to Exeter)

Inspection of Court

J Layte inspects Court file at Exeter and discoverers a great deal of dishonesty regarding what and how Mr Arthur

file at Exeter

has managed to file false evidence etc. J Layte allowed to copy some of the documents he wanted but not all
as any with hand written notes by a Judge / Court official allegedly not allowed.
26 October 2007 J Layte to Exeter Court

Letter(1 page)

The inspection of the Court file has revealed that false evidence has been provided by Mr Arthur and it cannot
be Justice for these Orders to stand.
29/25 October 2007 Order Judge Wainwright

Order 53

Transfer to Judge Middleton (Truro) for urgent attention.
31 October 2007 J Layte to Truro Court

Appeal 6

Appeal of the Order of 5 June 2007 and all subsequent Orders (Skeleton argument to follow)
12 November 2007 J Layte to Exeter Court

Appeal 6

Appeal (including skeleton argument) of the Order of 5 June 2007 and all subsequent Orders on the grounds
that the Judge's finding was based entirely on false evidence filed by Mr Arthur and that the false evidence was
filed in such a way as to make the Defendants unaware of what had been filed.7
15 November 2007 J Layte to Police Phone call Ref 475 Complaint concerning D Arthur perjury and "Attempting to pervert the course of justice"
27 November 2007 J Layte to DJ Middleton (Truro)

Letter (1 page)

It will not be possible to obey DJ Wainwright's Order of 25 Oct. An Appeal has been lodged etc. This
cc Arthurs by RD letter was also posted to Mr & Mrs Arthur by RD (DH754143077GB) and was signed for on 29 November 2007
contradicting Mr Arthur's 31 July 2007 letter which states "DOCUMENTS REQUIRING A SIGNATURE
CANNOT BE RECEIVED AT THE CLAIMANTS' SERVICE ADDRESS"
6 December 2007 J Layte to Camborne Police Letter (8 page) 9 pages ( Police 262  to Police 269 ) concerning the PACE notice
13 December 2007 J Layte to Camborne Police letter Copy of this CD (as of 13 December) supplied ref 475 15 November 2007 complaint.
18 December 2007 J Layte DC Sodergrin Meeting J Layte attends Camborne police station regarding D Arthur attempting to pervert the course of Justice and
perjury, lies and the PACE notice. About 2 hours explaining the background but DC Sodergrin is very unwilling to
listen to anything in detail as it is DC Parker's case (who is unwell) and she had not looked at the CD which explains
the "background" in far more detail than J Layte can verbally in just 2 hours. A waste of time.
10 January 2008 J Layte to DC Parker (Camborne) Letter Copy of this CD (updated and corrected) supplied ref 475 15 November 2007 complaint.
16 January 2008 J Layte to DS Boyling + DC Parker Meeting An almost exact copy of the the 18 December meeting with the exception that DS Boyling and DC Parker stated
that they would obtain transcripts of various hearings and J Layte may well instigate proceedings against the police/DC Exelby
because of the issuing of a PACE notice and will initially write to the Chief Constable about his concerns regarding the fact that
because the police took no action against D Arthur in January 2004 (D Arthur had lied to them regarding when he had
first noticed the FRM missing) yet issued a PACE notice on J Layte that allowed D Arthur to add a pleading to his
newly restored (pleading-less) "Claim" (although it would be 9 months before he filed his "Amended Particulars of Claim"
(item 22) and his FRM Application that specifically mentions the PACE notice and "The claimants spent significant time
communicating with the police to try and establish who had stolen it (the FRM)" (yeah!)
16 January 2008 Order HH Judge Griggs Order 54 Judge Griggs Order refusing permission to appeal the Order Mr Arthur obtained by deception by providing the Court with
      false information. It should be noted in the RULING Judge Griggs seems to think that VAT, outstanding issues (Arthur debts)
      and the Layte's charges to prepare the costs to "approximate" to CPR are all part of the costs!
    Ruling Ruling as supplied with Order
    Ruling Annotated copy of Ruling
22 January 2008 J Layte to Exeter Central Listing letter As the refusal to appeal was made without a hearing a request for a hearing under CPR 52.3 is allowed. A hearing of at least
      2 days is requested. A copy of the CD dated 23 January is included. Posted 25 January and confirmed received (by phone)
      28 January 2008
14 February 2008 Court to Laytes letter+notice Notice of 2 hour hearing as opposed to two day one requested and refusal to allow CD to be used on Court computer
20 February 2008 J Layte to Camborne police Letter Further (updated) CD supplied. Request for information. confirmation that JL will write to Chief Constable when time allows
29 February 2008 J Layte to Camborne police + FDPO Fax Please answer the questions posed in my letter of 20 Feb 2008 enclosing a copy of JL letter to Force data protection office
29 February 2008 Police data protection office to JL letter Only information about "yourself" is apparently allowed whereas I  requested copies of information as to what Mr Arthur told
      the police in December 2003 and the "significant time communicating with the police" (that Mr Arthur mentions in
      his Application to the Court) that determined that J Layte was responsible for the theft of a fabric rolling machine he
      owns half of from a building he owns half of and his arrest as a result of Mr Arthur's "information". In a subsequent
      phone conversation with Mrs Moon of the data protection office she confirmed that the information JL requires would
      not be released without a Court Order.
3 March 2008 Camborne police to J Layte Letter Reply to J Layte's letters of 20 and 29 February 2008 failing to answer any of questions.
4 March 2008 J Layte at Truro Court Meeting Judge Wainwright having given J Layte permission to inspect the Court file J Layte attends Truro Court for this
      purpose but even a preliminary inspection reveals many documents filed at the Court by the Arthurs that have
      not also been served on the Laytes. J Layte is unable, in the time allowed, to inspect the Court file in any detail.
5 March 2008 J Layte to Truro Court Fax Request to inspect the Court file before the coming hearing and estimate of the time it will take.
24 March 2008 J Layte Application Application 20 Please adjourn the Appeal Hearing as J Layte's mother has just passed away and he has had no time to prepare for the Hearing
26 March 2008 Order HH Judge Griggs Order 55 Order refusing to adjourn the Appeal Hearing
26 March 2008 D Arthur to Exeter Court Witness statement The Claimants commenced this action to avoid both parties loosing money because of first defendants destructive behaviour !!!!!
27 March 2008 HH Judge Griggs Hearing 21 For reasons JL had not prepared for this Hearing because of application above and Order above
27 March 2008 Order HH Judge Griggs Order 56 Appeal refused. His Honour Judge Griggs does not impress. Whilst admitting he had not had the common sense to even look
      at the Defendants' bills he stated that he was convinced that the Defendant's bills were in a form that made it impossible
      for Mr Arthur to make points of dispute because DJ Wainwright had implied that they were. He then threatened the Defendants
      with a Civil Restraint Order unless they produced bills that were in a suitable CPR format to allow points of dispute to be made.
      THE BILLS WERE ALREADY IN A SUITABLE FORM TO ALLOW POINTS OF DISPUTE TO BE MADE AS HAS NOW
      BEEN CONFIRMED BY DJ WAINWRIGHT HERSELF BECAUSE SHE HAS (BY HER ORDER OF 30 DECEMBER 2008)
      ORDERED MR ARTHUR TO MAKE POINTS OF DISPUTE (BY 20 FEB 2009) TO ESSENTIALLY THE SAME FORM BILLS
      THAT SHE HAD PREVIOUSLY (SEP 2007) RELIEVED HIM OF DOING SINCE THE FORM OF THE BILLS HAS NOT
      CHANGED.
      Following the Hearing at which HHJ Griggs said we had to improve our bills because he was convinced that DJ Wainwright
      had stated the format was faulty both J and K Layte had another look at the rules and could find nothing wrong
      with the format or any way they could be improved economically. K Layte was of the opinion that the solicitors
costs were OK and the "Broad brush" Order catered for the fact that only the invoice values had been included in
      our bills and was of the opinion that the bills would be improved if the correspondence would be better if incorporated
      in her bill rather than listed separately. J Layte did not agree because we had already admitted that our solicitors
      costs were only listed and thus not in a strictly CPR form and the rules state only 20 letters should be incorporated
      in the bill. The rest should be listed separately and it did not seem worthwhile to extract 20 items from the 1364 that
      were already listed separately. K Layte and J Layte decided to work separately on our respective bills from now on
15 April 2008 K Layte to DJ & A Arthur K Layte bill K Layte serves her amended bill (see above) on Arthurs because of HHJ Griggs's verbal directions at 27 March 2008 Hearing
24 April 2008 J Layte to DJ Middleton and  DJ & A Arthur Letter + Explains the litigation, the costs issues, what I have done to improve the content of my bill because of DJ Wainwright's
  cc HHJ Griggs, DJ Wainwright, DJ Mitchell six new pages "advice" and that I have not changed the format of my bill because I believe it is OK as it is however I have enclosed
      a witness statement that explains my understanding of  the rules so if I am wrong please put me right. None of
      the Judges to whom this letter was addressed criticized my understanding of the rules. Having taken
      into account DJ Wainwright's criticism of the content  enclosed with the letter were the six pages that had altered
      from the bill served on 8 March 2007 (and filed on 4 September 2007) with a request that the Court replace the
      original pages with the new ones. (DJ Middleton refused, see 8 May letter below)
24 April 2008 J Layte to DJ & A Arthur J Layte bill The six pages that had altered served by ordinary first class post with proof of posting (receipt never acknowledged. Lost?)
24 April 2008 J Layte to DJ & A Arthur J Layte bill The six pages that had altered served by recorded delivery (later confirmed as "lost" by Royal Mail)
8 May 2008

DJ Middleton to J Layte

Letter The bill served (and indeed filed) must be a new complete copy before the format will be considered.
12 May 2008 K Layte to DJ Middleton Letter + Bill Points out understanding of the costs rules and files a copy of her her bill of costs as served previously.
16 May 2008 DJ Middleton to K Layte Letter "District Judge Middleton will only consider the format of the bill/s as and when complete copies are filed
      On that basis the Second Defendant is to confirm whether the bill now filed is for the Court to ensure that
      it is CPR compliant. Only once the bill has been so certified will the Court consider a timetable for Points
      of Dispute"
19 May 2008 J Layte to DJ & A Arthur J Layte bill Complete copy of bill served on DJ and A Arthur (identical to 8 March 2007 bill except for the six changed pages)
      no change in form of the bill whatsoever. Served by recorded delivery first class post and signed for
19 May 2008 J Layte to DJ & A Arthur J Layte bill Complete copy of bill filed at Truro Court (identical to 8 March 2007 bill except for the six changed pages)
      no change in form of the bill whatsoever since first serving on 8 March 2007.
22 May 2008 K Layte to DJ Middleton Letter I confirm that the bill I have filed is for you to consider the format
27 May 2008 J Layte to Truro Court Letter Request for a Default Costs Certificate. The file copy of this was returned! Obviously not wanted in the file
      but it was sent back and thus It was re-filed.
3 June 2008 Truro Court to K Layte Letter Please confirm that the bill you have filed (and served) is for the Court to certify as CPR compliant.
15 June 2008 K Layte to Truro Court Letter I confirm the bill I have filed is for the Court to certify as CPR compliant
26 June 2008 DJ Middleton Order 57 Because of concerns that the Orders of DJ Wainwright are faulty DJ Middleton transfers the Claim  back to her
27 June 2008 DJ Middleton Order 58 Notice of transfer back to DJ Wainwright
14 July 2008 DJ Wainwright Order 59 Letter Ordering the Defendants to make Applications THAT WILL DEALT WITH IN THE USUAL WAY
20 July 2008 K Layte application Application 21 Please certify my bill as CPR compliant or point out where it is not
18 October 2008 J Layte application Application 22 Please certify my bill as CPR compliant or point out where it is not and more!
30 October 2008 DJ Wainwright at Exeter Hearing 22

D Arthur failed to attend apparently having faxed the Court the day before stating its all over so pointless having a Hearing

30 October 2008 DJ Wainwright (Drawn 6 November 2008) Order 60 2nd Defendants Application is not to be treated as an Application to get the Court's approval to confirm her bill CPR
      compliant in form but to be treated as an Application for relief from sanctions even though it was NOT. Nevertheless
      DJ Wainwright did confirm the 2nd Defendant's bill suitably compliant subject to 2.1 and 2.2  (complied with by 2nd Defendant)
      and Ordered the Claimants to make POD by 4 December 2008 (Needless to say they didn't)
30 October 2008 DJ Wainwright (Drawn 10 November2008) Order 61 First Defendant's Application (-Paragraph 1) be listed on first open date 2 hours at Truro. Claimants to file and serve
      evidence in response to the Application by 14 November 2008. (Needless to say they didn't but as the Order was not
      drawn till 10 November that is hardly surprising!)
10 November 2008 K Layte to Exeter Court Letter In compliance with 30 October Order. Copies of solicitors' invoices + justification of hourly rate + bill
10 November 2008 K Layte to DJ & A Arthur K Layte bill Copy of second Defendant's bill of costs as served originally on 15 April 2008 (solicitor's invoices etc added November 2008 in
      compliance with 30 October 2008 order) served on DJ & A Arthur by ordinary first class post. D Arthur eventually
      disputed this bill on 9 April 2009 in response to DJ Wainwright's "unless" Order of 16 March 2009
10 November 2008 K Layte to Exeter Court Letter In compliance with 30 October Order. Copies of solicitors' invoices + justification of hourly rate + bill
10 November 2008 K Layte to Exeter Court K Layte bill Copy of second Defendant's bill of costs as originally filed on 12 May 2008 (solicitor's invoices added November 2008 in
      compliance with 30 October 2008 order) served on DJ & A Arthur by ordinary first class post. D Arthur eventually
      disputed this bill on 9 April 2009 in response to DJ Wainwright's "unless" Order of 16 March 2009
11 November 2008 Exeter Order 62 Notice of Hearing 30 December 2008 at Exeter
20 November 2008 1st Claimant Appeal 7 Appealing the Order of 30 October 2008 and Court's decision to treat 2nd Defendant's application as an application
      from relief from sanctions. (which it was not)
4 December 2008 D Arthur to Defendants Letter Skeleton argument for above appeal
21 November 2008 DJ Wainwright (Drawn 1 December 2008) Order 63 The Appellants notice should be treated as an Application to set aside the without notice Order of 30 October 2008
      (IE First Defendant as his 18 Oct 2008 Application had not yet been referred to the Claimants on 30 Oct). The
      Application (ie 18 Oct 1st Def) to be heard 16 March 2009 at unknown Court.
10 December 2008 D Arthur to Exeter Court c Defendants Letter The second Defendant has no costs because LJ Moore-Bicke said so (allegedly said so that is)
16 December 2008 D Arthur to Exeter Court c Defendants Letter I have appealed not applied to set aside (we agree). I want another copy of 2nd Def's bill. It was not served 15 April ... etc
18 December 2008 D Arthur to Jeffrey Layte letter 17 Dec 1998 The Times newspaper cutting regarding daffodils may provide hope for Alzheimer's sufferers
      Mr Arthur is aware that both of J Layte's parents were unfortunate enough to suffer  from Alzheimer's and
      thus assumes (even hopes!) that J Layte also has the disease. Actually J Layte remembers that D Arthur 
      sent him this cutting ten years ago. Maybe D Arthur's has forgotten this. D Arthur also seems to periodically
      forget that J Layte's Christian name is John not Jeffrey
22 December 2008 DJ Wainwright Order 64 It will be the 2nd Defendant's bill ONLY on 30 December 2008 contradicting Order 61 / 62 above
30 December 2008 DJ Wainwright at Exeter Hearing 23 DJ Wainwright first sets aside her 30 November 2008 Order and then changes her mind having
      been handed the Defendants 27 November 2007 letter ("which must have become lost in the Court File")
      This letter was copied to the Claimants by RD (and signed for) contradicting first skeleton argument
      re (d) whether there is a good explanation for the delay "none has been conveyed to the Claimants"
      and second skeleton argument response "none is available" Both Mr Arthur's responses are thus false
30 December 2008 DJ Wainwright (drawn 8 January 2009) Order 65 Claimant's Application dismissed but costs against the Defendants awarded!!!!! (biased ?). First Defendant to file/serve his bill by
      6 January 2009 (NB Order not received until 10 January 2009 but bill filed / served 7 January 2009 in anticipation of the Order).
      Claimants do file additional (?????) POD by 20 Feb 2009. Reply by 6 April 2009. Case to be listed for assessment on first
      open date after 20 April 2009.
30 December 2008 DJ Wainwright (Drawn 26 January 2009) Order 66 Detailed assessment will take place on 27 May 2009 time estimate 1 day.
2 January 2009 D Arthur to Defendants Letter DJ Wainwright had no authority to review her 30 October 2008 Order. etc etc I will appeal the Order.
2 January 2009 D Arthur to J Layte on 01209 820146 Phone call First phone call from Arthurs for about six years (but at least it proves that they know my tel. no eh)
      D Arthur says "Message" to which J Layte replies "Is that Mr Arthur?" Mr Arthur says "No I am the not blond, it has
      taken till now but I have won and you have lost" and hangs up.
2 January 2009 J Layte to D Arthur on 01209 860696 Phone call The Arthurs had changed their number to ex directory but were unaware that the Defendants knew it so J Layte
      returns the D Arthur phone call which was answered by D Arthur but he refused to speak. J Layte suggests a
      meeting or phone discussion but D Arthur hangs up.
3 January 2009 J Layte to D Arthur on 01209 860696 Phone call J Layte leaves another message on Arthurs 1571 re attempting settlement but it is not answered.
      J Layte leaves a message that he will send a fax and attempts to do so (many times) but Arthurs decline to accept the calls.
4 January 2009 J Layte to D Arthur on 01209 860696 Phone call J Layte attempts to send the fax again but D Arthur has barred calls from J Layte's landline.
6 January 2009 D Arthur to Defendants Letter D Arthur's answer to the settlement attempts made by J Layte in the above phone calls!!!!
6 January 2009 J Layte to Claimants (CC Exeter Court) JL Bill Service J Layte serves 2009 bill on Claimants by hand delivery to Kennall Vale Mill. The 2009 bill is essentially identical
      in form to his March 2007 bill. The content is varied marginally in accordance with DJ Wainwright's "advice" given in
      her note attached to her September 2007 Order. The service was witnessed and the witness took a copy of the
      documents before service. New N242 included. POD by 20 February 2009.
8 January 2009 J Layte to Exeter Court (CC Claimants) J Layte bill Copy of first Defendant's bill of costs as served January 2009 as filed at Exeter Court
10 November 2008 K Layte to Exeter Court K Layte bill Copy of second Defendant's bill of costs as served originally April 2008 (solicitor's invoices added November 2008 in
      compliance of 30 October 2008 Order)
10 January 2009 Claimants to J Layte Bill refused Claimants return the bill served on 6 January 2009 apparently un-opened (photo)
4 February 2009 Exeter Court to J Layte Appeal 8 As Appeal 7 above but 30 December 2008 Order this time because 1st Defendant's 18 October 2008 application is
      also treated as relief from sanctions (which it also was not) Skeleton argument to follow
5 February 2009 D Arthur to Defendants Letter I have appealed the 30 October 2008 and 30 December 2008 Orders
20 February 2009 Exeter Court to Defendants Letter Skeleton argument to above appeal (filed 5 days too late to cause delay perhaps)
20 February 2009 J Layte to Exeter Court Letter+fax Confirming Claimants have not made points of dispute (for the fifth time) by the date required in 30 December 08 Order
7 March 2009 J Layte to Exeter  Court Letter + CD The current situation. Is the Hearing of 16 March at Exeter? Photos/scans of Claimant's returned, refused, lost items.
  cc HHJ Griggs    
  cc Claimants   Copy of above by witnessed hand delivery. As of 20 March 2009 not returned
16 March 2009 Central Listing to J Layte Letter First Defendant's letter dated 7 March 2009 has been passed to HHJ Griggs who has refused the Claimant's appeal but
      Exeter Court seems to think he refused the First Defendant's appeal and gives me 7 days to apply for an oral reconsideration
      of Mr Arthur's appeal that has bee refused!  Exeter Court never cease to amaze.
16/10 March 2009 Order HHJ Griggs Order 67 Upon reading the Defendant's appeallants (sic) notice permission refused, but the Defendant hasn't appealed it was the Claimant.
16/10 March 2009 Order HHJ Griggs Order 68 Upon reading the Claimant's appeallants (sic) notice permission refused.
16/23 March 2009 Order DJ Wainwright Order 69 Unless Order . Claimants given a fifth chance to make POD to First Defendant's bill and a sixth to Second Defendant's bill!
30 March 2009 Notice of ORAL RE-HEARING Order 70 Claimant has asked for an oral re-hearing of refusal to appeal. The Hearing will be 2 June 2009 at Exeter (after the
      assessment Hearing! already convened for 27 May 2009). Defendants complain.
2 April 2009 Amended ORAL RE-HEARING Order 71 2 June 20-09 Hearing vacated ... now will be 22 April 2009.
9 April 2009 D Arthur to J Layte Letter ? POD ? This is headed "Claimaint's points of dispute in respect of the first Defendant's schedule of costs"
      but is a feeble excuse for not making POD when he had the chance. D Arthur knows perfectly well the CD posted to the Court
      (cc Claimants) is not a bill of costs, it is readable by any computer with a web browser (that includes ME) and he has
      returned J Layte's bill unopened and has thus refused service of a document and refused to make POD for the fifth time.
16 April 2009 Exeter Court to Defendants Letter The Claimants request that DJ Wainwright recuse is refused. This case demands final resolution.
22 April 2009 Hearing HHJ Griggs Hearing 24 Oral re-hearing of 10 March Order refusing permission to appeal. Defendants did not attend as were told needed permission
      to attend and Exeter is a 210 mile round trip. HHJ Griggs changes mind and allows Mr Arthur to appeal. (no costs awarded)
22 April 2009 (1) Order HHJ Griggs (received 30 April) Order 72 Original ......Claimant to file and serve any skeleton argument relied on as to why the two orders should BOT be set aside
      the appeal hearing to be on first available date which is 14 July 2009
4 May 2009 K Layte to Exeter Court Letter 14 July 2009 Hearing is not an available date for me and neither are some dates in June
5 May 2009 J Layte to who drew the Order of 22 April Letter Please explain the word "BOT" and re-list the 14 July 2009 as it is not an "available" date.
7 May 2009 Exeter Appeals officer to J Layte Letter The word "BOT" should be "NOT" and if you want to re-list the 14 July 2009 hearing you must make a formal application
12 May 2009 J Layte to Exeter listings Letter I am surprised that the Claimant should provide a skeleton argument as to why the two orders should NOT be set aside
      as I thought he wanted them set aside. Please find enclosed formal application to re-list the 14 July 2009 hearing
12 May 2009 Defendants' Application Application23 Defendants' application to adjourn / re-list the 14 July 2009 hearing as both will be abroad on 14 July 2009 because of a long
      standing booking (to attend a friend's wedding (Roxanne O'Mahoney, daughter of Jim & Gill Mahoney) in Southern Ireland)
22 April 2009 (2) Order HHJ Griggs Order 73 1 Amendment ...  Claimant to file and serve any skeleton argument relied on as to why the two orders should NOT be set aside
22 April 2009 (3) Order HHJ Griggs Order 74 2 Amendment .... Claimant to file and serve any skeleton argument relie4d on as to why the two orders should NOT be set aside
14 May 2009 Notice DJ Arthur Notice DJ Arthur Notice that points out that the court "repeatedly failed to comply with their own order of 10 September 2007"
      and admits (for the first time since march 2007) that he is in possession of a copy of the first Defendant's bill of costs.
18 May 2009 Order DJ Wainwright Order 75 The detailed assessment hearing listed for 27 may be vacated because of Claimants' appeal listed for 14 July 2009 but
      noting the Defendants' application to vary the date exists (contrary to HHJ Griggs who later denied that it did)
16 June 2009 Order DJ Arnold (Received 25 June) Order 76 The Defendants request for a default costs certificate be refused as "particulars of defence were filed on 9 April 2009 (see 9 April
      2009 letter from Mr Arthur above which can hardly be called a defence). In Mr Arthur's "notice" of 14 May 2009 (above)
      Mr Arthur admits to receiving a copy of the the first Defendant's bill of costs on the afternoon of 13 May 2009 so even by the
      date this order was made the reason given in the order as to why the Default cost certificate had not been issued was
      out of date. The paying party has 21 days from receiving the bill to make detailed points of dispute yet the order refusing
      the default costs certificate was made 34 days after the paying party admitted receiving the bill.
29 June 2009 J Layte Application Application 24 Part 23 Application to set aside the 16 June 2009 Order made without a hearing. The Court cashed the 75 cheque and then
      ignored the application. An e-mail was sent to Mr Fairchild (copied to the Court of Appeal) on 27 November 2009 confirming
      his promise (made in a telephone conversation on the same day) to investigate. Time will tell.
14 July 2009 Hearing HHJ Griggs Hearing 25 Defendants unable to attend as they were abroad and assumed their application to re-list has been allowed (since it had
      not been refused)
14 July 2009 Order HHJ Griggs Order 77 Vague Order made in the Defendants absence and in defiance of the application to adjourn and re-list the hearing
24 July 2009 First Defendant to Truro Court Phone call We are not pleased that the 14 July 2009 went ahead in our absence although we will not being appealing the Order since
      the Judge seems to have done the right thing and set aside the two orders that wrongly deemed our 2008 applications to be
      something they were not. They were NOT applications for relief from sanctions. Also what has happened to the first
      Defendant's 29 June 2009 application? And please deal with the first Defendant's 18 October 2008 application now
      that it is no longer deemed to be an application for relief from sanctions.
27 July 2009 HHJ Griggs notes in a letter from Truro Letter HHJ Griigs admits to knowing Mrs Layte would be abroad but had not made an application to adjourn but fails to admit
      that he also knew Mr Layte would also be abroad and HAD made an application to adjourn.
30 July 2009   Order 78 Truro transfer it back to Exeter without having answered any of the questions posed in 24 July 2009 phone call above.
7 September 2009 Order HHJ Griggs Order 79 Order made without a hearing (no part 23 mentioned) that deemed a letter written by Mr Layte to be an application to
      set aside the 14 July 2009 order made at the 14 July 2009
14 September 2009 Order HHJ Griggs (received 28 September) Order 80 Order made without a hearing (part 23 mentioned). This gave the Defendants 7 days to apply for it to be set aside
30 September 2009 Defendants' application Application 25 Application to set aside the Orders of 7 and 14 September 2009 and vacate the 30 October 2009 hearing convened
      to discuss setting aside the 14 July 2009 hearing.
20 October 2009 Exeter Court to K Layte Letter Mr Clarke of Exeter Court informs K Layte that the 30 October 2009 will go ahead and the Judge has directed that
      a transcript of the 14 July 2009 judgement be obtained at public expense. Mr Clarke had a variety of methods of
      communicating this important information to both Defendants (phone, email, special delivery, etc) but chose to
      only inform K Layte by a letter with an out of date J Layte service address in the middle of a postal strike. This
      is either incompetence or a deliberate attempt to delay informing the Defendants.
29 October 2009 E-mail from Exeter Court E-mail E-mail message received just before the hearing the Defendants had applied to be vacated one month before informing
  Received 30 October 2009 10:18 am   in effect that the application had been refused and that a document (transcript of 14 July 2009 hearing) required for
      the today's hearing could be picked up at Truro! Bearing in mind Truro is 8 miles distant and Exeter about 100 it was
      impossible for J Layte to inform K Layte, pick up the transcript at Truro and travel to Exeter in the time available. Exeter Court
      had the transcript on 21 October and knew the first Defendant's telephone number as well as (obviously) his e-mail
      address and could have e-mailed a copy of the transcript on 21 October which would have meant we would have
      attended the 30 October 2009 hearing because the transcript (when we eventually were sent a copy on 5 November 2009)
      totally changed the Defendants' interpretation of the meaning of the order made on 14 July 2009 and even though we
      had applied to vacate the 30 October hearing would have attended to point out the many errors in the judgement.
30 October 2009 E-mail J Layte to Exeter Court e-mail and Fax Answer to above e-mail which was also sent by fax (at 13:41) just in case Mr Clarke was away from his desk and
      was unable to hand a copy to the Judge. He was away from his desk but at least the fax was handed to the Judge
      J Layte was later informed.
30 October 2009 Hearing HHJ Griggs Hearing 26 Defendants unable to attend as only told the hearing would proceed just before
30 October 2009 Order HHJ Griggs Order 81 Order made at a hearing the defendants had made a formal application to vacate but but the Defendants were only
      informed just before the hearing that their application had been ignored. Is this justice? The Defendants don't think so
      and are asking permission to appeal.
5 November 2009 29 October letter received 5 November! Letter enc 29 October letter from Mr Clarke (Exeter Court) enclosing a copy of the 14 July 2009 transcript of the
    14 July Judgement Judgement in advance of tomorrow's hearing before HHJ Griggs. Actually received six days after the
      hearing
15 November 2009 Annotated copy of 14 July Judgement Annotated copy of The annotations represent what we would have said at the 14 July 2009 hearing if we had been present. and at
    14 July Judgement the 30 October 2009 hearing if we had received the transcript before the hearing instead of six days after it.
17 November 2009 30 October Order is drawn Order 81 Having waited 18 days Exeter Court draw the Order and it is received 19.5 days after the hearing. 21 days are allowed to appeal!
20 November 2009 Defendants' appeal Appeal 9 Very hurriedly prepared Appellants notice is e-mailed to Court of Appeal on Friday 20 November 2009 being the
       21st day since the hearing and 1.5 days since receiving the order. A hardcopy was posted special delivery on
      (Monday) 23 October 2009 ( BR857782160GB ) at a cost of about 22
29 November 2009 Royal Mail Web Page web page By Sunday 29 November 2009 the recorded Delivery Appellant's Notice had apparently still not been delivered to C of A
       
29/11/09 to 23/7/210 <> 100 Documents Documents About 100 documents (letters / e-mails / applications / etc)  to be included on next version of this CD/DVD