Fact: Under case law a solicitors’ signature on a bill of costs is no empty formality. "The signature on the bill of costs under the rules is effectively the certificate by an officer of the court that the receiving party's solicitors are not seeking to recover in relation to any item more than they have agreed to charge their client…" (click here)

Fact: A false declaration is abuse of a position of trust and tantamount to criminal fraud. It is also a most serious offence… "And the other side of a presumption of trust afforded to the signature of an officer of the court must be that breach of that trust should be treated as a most serious disciplinary offence"

Fact: FDC Law made false declarations on three separate occasions. The Senior Partner, in 2004 and 2005 and Ben Whelan in 2008… LIARS!

• In July 2003 Patricia Wayman and Catriona Duthie misled District Judge Rutherford of Bath County Court over costs. The Courts only acknowledged this FACT in 2008. To do this Wayman had to…
• Breach the Civil Procedures Rules (CPR)
• Breach the Law Society Rules (Principle 17.01 and 17.03)
• Breach a direct Court Order (of D J King, Bath County Court)

Fact: In October 2003 FDC Law wrote to their Client ( In October 2003 FDC Law wrote to their Client (here) informing her that she must ALSO pay for work that FDC Law had wrongly included when they tricked D J Rutherford into making a Costs Order in 2003. The evidence (largely hidden until 2006) suggests that this was a pre-meditated and deliberate attempt at criminal double-charging by the Senior Partner. Just how much Duthie knew is moot.

• Fact: From July 2003 to October 2004 FDC Liar refused to provide any further costs information, even when the Law Society (OSS) asked them to. Why such secrecy in a family case? Either FDC Law LIED to the Law Society or Greg Clark of the OSS lied to me. Hmmm.
• Facts FDC Liar clearly knew but wanted to hide: (successfully hid)
• Misleading District Judge Rutherford - on 29/07/2003
• Professional Negligence – they had failed to keep proper costs records
• Inadequate Professional Service – they had "completely ignored" the Client Care and Cost Information Code (Rule 15) – mandatory since 1999
• Their failure to obtain a contract with their Client – finally admitted 2008

• Fact: In May 2004 FDC Liar learned that I had abandoned (the Willing Blind) OSS and filed an Appeal. FDC Law offered their Client the carrot of Legal Aid and persuaded her to pay those costs they had wrongly included in the Order of D J Rutherford.
• Fact: The matter came before His Honour Judge Barclay (Bristol) in September 2008 and was defended by both FDC Law’s Senior Partner and Catriona Duthie (funded by the tax-payer). None of the above was admitted. They simply claimed they had made "mistakes" and pretended everything was in order. They misled the Judge, and yet my appeal (out of time and unusual) was successful.
• Fact: In October 2004 FDC Law signed the FIRST false declaration on a bill of costs.

• 20 Years practising as a solicitor (was he struck off?)
• 5 Years sitting as a Deputy District Judge in the West Country (why stop?)

• Fact: In 2004 FDC Liar employed Nigel Long and failed in their duty to "supervise" him.
• Fact: In December 2004 Nigel Long misled and deceived District Judge Nigel Brookes (normally S. E. Circuit) sitting in the BATH County Court.
• Firstly: Brookes was misled by the false declaration on the bill of costs. In 2008 the (now ex) Senior Partner of FDC Liar admitted she should NOT have signed that bill.
• Secondly: Where there is a large difference between the estimates (which both H H J Barclay and I had relied upon in my successful appeal **) and the "bill" an explanation must be provided. Nigel Long volunteered an explanation which was not the TRUE reason for the difference (bill was up to 530% higher). Long admitted FDC Law’s Professional Negligence in failing to keep records, but told the Court that the times were estimated as a result. In FACT the MAIN "reason" (discovered in 2008) was that the estimates were based on a charging rate of just £80/hr whereas Long’s bill was based on £160/hr. Over £8,000 FALSELY CLAIMED? FDC Liar!!!!
• Fact: Both D J Brookes and later H H J Cardinal (Birmingham) accepted the reason given by the proven liar Nigel Long. Clearly Wayman and Long knew at the outset that this was a falsehood. Lying, Cheating SCUM! – so-called "Officers of the Court"!

Quite WHY the recently appointed (here) D J Brookes, former Senior Partner of local firm Batt Broadbent, (here) decided to award the Senior Partner of FDC Liar 150% of her estimates is unknown, as 15% is more normal. All he said was "I don’t want to penalise the solicitors too much". In FACT he was misled by the false declaration of Patricia Wayman and the lies of Nigel Long into awarding her 225% of her estimated costs – all based on a LIE about the REAL "reason" for the increase. I filed for an appeal against the detailed assessment, mainly because Brookes was clearly not "firing on all cylinders" in December 2004.

Now Enter NEW Council – David Curwen – (Unity Street Chambers, Bristol BS1 5HH)

It seems Duthie had had enough. H H J Barclay listed my appeal as a re-hearing before assessors. This was NOT to FDC Lair’s liking and Curwen’s first action was "The Curwen Ruse" (more…). This, and a clandestine visit to Bristol County Court by Elaine Pitman, (ILEX) meant that Barclay (who knew the history) could not hear the matter. The Curwen Ruse was successful and Barclay made this order.

• Fact: Both Curwen and Long attended before H H J Barclay on 17/02/2005. Clearly Long knew the MAIN reason for the huge uplift and he knew that he’d lied to and misled D J Brookes in December 2004. Equally, if Curwen had taken even a cursory glance at the records he had to have known that the estimates were based on £80/hr and the MAIN reason for the uplift was that the bill was based on £160/hr – NOT the yarn spun to Brookes.

• Fact: both Long and Curwen kept silent and thereby misled His Honour Judge Barclay. Furthermore I clearly remember Curwen, originator of the Curwen Ruse, feigning his ignorance of it. See "Types of Lie" – here.
• Fact: Curwen kept silent before Her Honour Judge Deeley and His Honour Judge Cardinal (both Birmingham) in 2005. A transcript of matters before Brookes made clear the 150% and the reason offered by Long. Cardinal accepted these and yet Curwen said nothing – even if the face of these assumptions – here and here. In Case Law (here) failing to correct a wrong assumption or failure to ACT is dishonesty!
• Fact: It was in connection with this appeal that FDC Law went on to sign their SECOND false declaration (in this one case) on a bill of costs.

* Long Fined £5,000 with £500 costs for deliberately trying to mislead the court in 2008 and for the bill (falsely signed by Whelan) – here

** Leigh Vs Michelin Tyres (2003) – click here

So says FDC Law’s own web site. It seems that attempted double-charging is either policy within FDC Law or else Pitman didn’t want to be outdone by her boss (Wayman)!

• Fact: Another of Liar Longs bills had Pitman claiming that she had done work they were also claiming Curwen had done (charging both). Another of Liar Longs bills had Pitman claiming that she had done work they were also claiming Curwen had done (charging both). This page has been in the public domain for YEARS – despite being hosted in the UK it remains. Why? Because it is TRUE and FDC Liar knows I can prove every word… using their own bills.
• Fact: This bill was ALSO signed as being "accurate" by the LYING Senior Partner.

Comment: This bill was "assessed" by D D J Wilkinson (Bath), Senior Partner of local firm Kirby Simcox (Bristol). The judge wouldn’t hear me when I tried to draw his attention to this double-charging. I am not saying he did anything wrong. I just hope that after reading this he and other Judges on the South Western Circuit will be extremely sceptical of ALL bills from FDC Liar and ALL bills bearing the address 9 Boulevard, Weston-Super-Mare, BS23 1NN – home of LIAR Nigel Long. A 100% record of overcharging in this one case.

Your Opinion? What of the Bath County Court? Facts: It is a trail of lost documents, delays and obstruction. In December 2004 the entire solicitors file was "missing" at the detailed assessment. Is it co-incidence that Nigel Long LIED to D J Brookes? If Brookes has seen the records the bill was based upon it would have been obvious that the charging rate used in the estimates was £80/hr and that the "reason" given by Long was far from the whole TRUTH. In 2008 Bath County Court "lost" key evidence and ignored dozens of letters – in the end I had to file an Appeal just to get my appliction served. Only then did D J James (Aldershot) finally admit (in a missive to the Circuit Judge) that "the Court may have erred" Is it a trail of ineptitude and incompetence? Or is it something more sinister? Is it possible that FDC Liar was calling in "favours"?

My Opinion: If you are damaged by incompetentce, professional negligence, professional misconduct, lies, deceit, and/or the dishonesty of a solicitor, law firm, Council or Costs Draughtsman you may find: The very Courts themselves to be obstructive and the Judges may turn a blind-eys in favour of their "buddies". Be warned! For your own sakes avoid FDC Law, Nigel Long, David Curwen and the rest. They are guilty of all of the above and have been rewarded by the Courts for their misconduct.

The LAST false declaration on a bill of costs (in this case) was signed by Benjamin James Whelan (Partner, FDC Law, solicitor number 150926) in June 2008. Another of Liar Longs bills – Long was fined for his part but he was only the "monkey" – the "organ grinder" was Whelan. No excuses even if it IS a tradition in FDC Liar. Whelan attempted to claim £1,000’s FDC Law was not entitled to. "A most serious disciplinary offence" – but not in the BATH County Court, where liars who are professionally negligent and break all the rules are rewarded for their misconduct. Justice denied to protect LIARS!

There are plenty of law firms out there. Do you need to take the risk of using FDC Law, Nigel Long, or David Curwen? What use is a law firm that cannot even protect it’s own reputation? Remember these are real so-called "professionals" and proven incompetent liars. It’s not just me, either. I have dozens of emails from dissatisfied Clients and former Clients of this firm. I am not the only publisher – these links have nothing to do with me…

Click Here, Here, or Here … or try any Internet Search Engine

Next up… Does Zahida Manzoor believe in time travel? - the MP’s and the Ministry of Justice (here). Find out at www.lcs-test.co.uk … and please, take part in our survey http://www.lcs-test.co.uk/SurveyF.htm

[Bullies] [LCS-Test]