Lies, deceit and misleading the Court
As a Witness! As a Representative!
[Previous Page] [Home] [Regional Costs Judge] [Leigh Vs Michelin]
Official, Open and Public Complaint to the ALCD
Nigel Long's response dated 7th July 2008 - received today (19/07/08) (OCR)
Key: What Nigel Long says red bold italic my spoke black - original head here local copy here
Allegation 1...that I am a liar
Mr Poultney bases this allegation on paragraph 43 of the judgment. When I gave evidence on 07 March it was my recollection and belief that absence of a client care letter was mentioned at the hearing in December 2004. I told this to the District Judge on 07 March in the knowledge that the transcript of the December 2004 hearing did not include reference to the client care letter; indeed, I read the transcript that morning in the court's ante room at the specific request of Counsel, Mr Curwen, who was conducting the case for FDC Law. I had no intention of misleading the court and had nothing to gain by doing so. I have to accept that my recollection might be wrong, and that DJ James has decided so, but detailed assessment hearings without mention of the client care letter (or absence thereof) are rare in my experience.
I understand why Mr Poultney now says I am a liar. However, I am not a liar. If required I can produce plenty of character references.
My Response
Mr. Long is over-simplifying the complaint. I do NOT just allege that he is a liar, other words used in the complaint are "dishonest", "unscrupulous" and "cheat". District Judge James (the Regional Costs Judge) used the words "deliberate" and "mislead".
Mr. Long is over-simplifying the complaint. I do NOT base this allegation just on paragraph 43 of the judgement. I base it on my own knowledge and experience of Nigel Long. It became plain as the TRUTH emerged in this case that Nigel Long had lied to ME in the past. For the purposes of this complaint to the ALCD, however, I need to give examples that can be proved, otherwise it simply his word against mine - and a liar is likely to lie again to protect himself.
There is (of course) more than one type of lying...three specifics Long is guilty of would be...
Lying by omission
One lies by
omission by omitting an important fact, deliberately leaving another person
with a misconception. Lying by omission includes failures to correct
pre-existing misconceptions.
A misleading
statement is one where there isn't an outright lie, but still has the purpose
of making someone believe in an untruth.
An exaggeration occurs when the most fundamental aspect(s) of a statement is true, but the degree to which it is true is not correct
Click here for more on the types of lying including some (old) case law from here
I will deal with these types of lying in the next section "Misleading District Judge Brookes (12/04)"
Above Nigel Long states "I had no intention of misleading the court and had nothing to gain by doing so" Clearly he would gain by hiding his own misconduct - if he COULD have hidden it we would not be here now. He was also protecting the solicitors that HAD paid him large sums of money and (he hoped) would continue to do so. He was ALSO potentially protecting £3,013.88 - see "squabble" below.
Above Nigel Long states "detailed assessment hearings without mention of the client care letter (or absence thereof) are rare in my experience" Even MORE reason for not "lying by omission", surely? Even MORE reasons for not "lying by misleading"? Why NOT mention it? It was important! It was unusual! Why try to pretend that he HAD mentioned it?
So... Nigel Long can produce references? So what! HERE are two "referees" that appear to agree that Nigel Long is a deceitful, misleading LIAR. I may not count for much, I may even be "as thick as pig shit" - but I KNOW when I am being lied to. District Judge James (one would hope) can spot a liar - that he did so in so short a time suggests that he (at least) has a brain.
This page may grow - depends what else Nigel Long has to say and what the ALCD find. All for now - last update 20/07/2008.
[Previous Page] [Top] [Next Head]
Ok, I have MORE news... Under the Fourth Head I said "I wonder if D J James will think these "costs" were "reasonably incurred"?" - Well, in respect of Mr. Long's "bills" (for misleading the Court?), FDC Law tried to claim three items totaling £3,013.88. A LOT of money?
All three items were struck out. Actually, of course, these were claimed as Disbursements... meaning (unless they lied again) FDC Law will have had to pay Nigel Long this money - so the liar still gets paid :-( ... but WHO picks up the tab? Well, given FDC Law's MAJOR Inadequate Professional Service - despite the Law Society failings - I'm POSITIVE it won't be their Client - - - so, I'm guessing either FDC Law pay this or try asking Nigel to split their losses or something? Both are greedy - I hope they enjoy the squabble.
A costs draughtsman to avoid "at all costs" - Nigel Long, The Boulevard, Weston-Super-Mare
Whatever you do I suggest you avoid FDC Law and Nigel Long like the plague.
FDC Law's MAJOR Inadequate Professional Service (opens new window)
ANY bill from this firm and ANY bill produced by Nigel Long should be subjected to the closest scrutiny - check out the Elaine Pitman Page. and the Leigh Vs. Michelin Tyre Page
[Previous Page] [Next Head] [Home] [Top] [Regional Costs Judge] [Leigh Vs Michelin]
Nigel Long does "work" for dishonest firms such as FDC Law and (no doubt) many others in the south west. He is not to be trusted. Use him at your peril. Do not give him your custom. If you meet him as an opponent, be very wary of him ... this is MY opinion but ... you have been warned!
I believe him to be a liar and a completely unscrupulous, self-serving, cheat - but you don't have to believe ME
On 7th March 2008 Mr. Long appeared as a witness at FDC Law's request. The District Judge - District Judge R James, normally of Aldershot and Farnham County Court - was no "mere" district judge. He was sitting as Regional Costs Judge (I think there are only 6 in the country?) - a veritable "Big Cheese" in the costs business - unlikely to make throw-away remarks? In any case, he reserved his judgment and thought about it very carefully for six weeks. Here's what he said in his draft judgment dated 15th April 2008 ...
"I am afraid that I did not form such a good impression of Mr. Long. In evidence concerning the crucial issues as to whether there had been a breach of the indemnity principle he told the Court that District Judge Brookes was told that there was no client care letter to establish the charging rate in the bill. When challenged and it being pointed out that there was a transcript of the hearing before District Judge Brookes in the bundle, he admitted that contrary to the statement that he had just made he had read the transcript only that morning and there was no reference to such a disclosure. That was an astonishing admission and it is difficult to come to any other conclusion but that Mr. Long had deliberately tried to mislead the Court. In his defence he made the lame excuse that the transcript may not be accurate, that the tape machine may have been turned off at the crucial time. I am afraid that his evidence is unquestionably tainted and I am bound to regard it with considerable scepticism."
So, ALCD, this is my FIRST head of complaint to you.
In my opinion Nigel Long is a liar and unfit to be a Fellow of your organisation. It would seem that a Regional Costs Judge shares my opinion. What do you intend to DO about it? To date I have emailed you FOUR times but you have not responded.
[Top] [Previous Page] [Next Head]
[Home] [Regional Costs Judge] [Leigh Vs Michelin]