4. Trial in London
While the judge ruled against the strikeout request, she also requested for herself to act as the Judge for the trial.
Our top management team attended the court, and were shocked at the unfair judgement we received. The judge twisted our simple claim to a personal attack to Carl Thomas Senior, and ruled that we have to compensate the Defender!
After the judgement, the Judge and the legal representatives of TLT were happily chatting. It was like a little celebration among them! . We truly wondered why….
We are now waiting for the Judgement Report to understand why we, as victims, were “penalised”. Is it because to warn against others to attempt to seek truth? Read this chapter and you judge for yourself.
4.1 On “Mandatory Block Leave”
Provider ignored our request for refund sent via our legal representative for many weeks.
Then, we received a letter of provider’s request to File for Strikeout. The reasons provided were absurd, with the key representative giving “mandatory” medical reasons for not able to be consulted.
4.2 Company Name Changed
Passed on 24 March 2017, a Special Resolution was duly passed by the company to change from Barley Investments Ltd to Barclays (Barley) Ltd.
Earlier on 13 Feb 2017, Barley had filed in Company House that, effective from 6 Apr 2016, Barclays Bank Plc and Keepier Investments became the registrable RLE. All companies are registered at the same address at 1 Churchill Place, London, England E14 5HP.
Barclays Bank engaged TLT LLP, one of the top solicitor firm in UK, to represent Barley.
4.3 File For Deletion
Barclays instructed TLT to file for deletion without replying to our letter sent by our Solicitor.
If Barley was “innocent” as per the Judge in the Trial claimed, then why not reply to our letter?
4.4 Strikeout Request Failed
Our Head of Compliance attended the court case. She observed the Judge listened patiently to Defender’s counsel who spent close to 45 minutes to talk. But, to our counsel, he was barely given 10 minutes to talk.
The Judge showed the inclination to close the case based on a different passport copy of Carl Thomas Senior, that was different from the copy we shared in Chapter 2.
Luckily, our counsel shared the email exchanges we had with Barley’s auditor, Slaughter & May, which proved that Barley received our request for clarification but he chose to ignore, out of guilt, I guess.
In the Order letter from the County Court at Clerkenwell & Shoreditch dated on 31 Oct 2017, it ordered Carl Thomas Senior was to provide evidence of what “mandatory block leave” means. However, up to now, we did not receive the explanation.
4.5 Trial Preparation
During the trial preparation, we received many requests for additional proof that were not too related to the case. However, our solicitor insisted us to provide. We believed now that the solicitor insisted us to comply so that they can have more excuses to charge us more legal fees.
P/s: The solicitor never provides receipts to our payments. On the other hand, when they sent us invoice, they demanded instant payment. If not, they would stop work. So our advice is not to engage such solicitors. Sadly, the two UK solicitors were irresponsible solicitors. It was our mistakes to trust the recommendation from “friends”.
4.6 During Trial Court
Bias! Bias! Bias!
The Judge was obviously patient to the counsel from TLT (Barclays Bank’s appointed solicitor) and very impatient with ours. She had many times cut off our counsel’s questions to the witnesses from Barclays Bank.
4.7 Unqualified Witness
In addition to Carl Thomas Senior, a Barclays Bank’s employee was also called upon as a witness, as an IT Expert.
The other witness was Ms. Roisin Waite. She was then the Head of Group Digital within the Corporate Relations team.
She was “supposed” to be presented as the “IT Expert”. During the trial, she claimed that the registration of a domain was easy, and did not require any verification of address. The requirement published in Nominet UK should NOT be taken too seriously. She had personally never registered a domain before.
4.8 Unfair Judgement Order
While the Judge mentioned during the court that had Barclays (Barley) replied to our inquiries, we do have to spend so much on legal fees.
However, as a company especially a top rating bank like Barclays Bank, the company has a social responsibility to reply to a formal inquiry, instead of doing all out to avoid replies.
The Judge said we should not pursue since we were provided information. But, we only get to know during Trial session that Carl Thomas Senior did receive information from Slaughter and May but chose to ignore!
We truly don’t understand! If Barclays (Bank) was truly innocent as it claimed, why didn’t it just tell us?
There were so many opportunities for them to tell us. Let us list out the many “opportunities”:
- Our email through Slaughter and May;
- Our Legal Letter to Barclays (Barley) Ltd (The excuse of “mandatory block leave” was truly a joke);
- When its solicitor replied to our letter to apply for Strikeout, why didn’t it add the information shared by Carl Thomas Senior?
- During the trial preparation, why didn’t it provide this answer, and instead asked so many unrelated questions?
- Why Carl Thomas Senior resigned from the company after we sent email to Slaughter and May?
- Why change the company’s name to Barclays (Barley) Ltd after we send Legal Letter? (Could it be Barclays Bank was the mastermind?)
We have so many unanswered questions. We know we will not be successful to seek any justice from proper channels through the authorities and legal systems. Thus, we can only seek justice here.