The famously litigious Rupert Allason (the former MP also known as Nigel West, the spy writer) has added the adjective "incredible" to the judicially approved list of permissible descriptions of him. Unfortunately for him the word was not applied in a sense that expressed stupefaction at his might or majesty (e.g. The Incredible Hulk or, indeed, Einstein, Joyce or Lawrence). It was some of his evidence in court (under oath) that was found to be "simply incredible". See the full story here:
Polarpark v Allason
Check paragraph 9 of the above judgment before you sue me Mr Allason.
Other parts of RA's case were found to be "simply hopeless" and were not even appealed by him.
The following is mild and qualified. It is paragraph 28 of the judgment:
"In assessing the credibility or otherwise of the defendant's evidence, the Master had well in mind his conclusion (not challenged on this appeal) that the defendant's assertion that he was the beneficial owner of Croftdown was a defence put forward dishonestly and in bad faith, together with other instances of apparent dishonesty on the part of the defendant, such as his assertion (contrary to earlier correspondence) that he had not seen the Deed of Settlement, and the conclusion of the Bermudian judge hearing the divorce proceedings that the defendant had given dishonest evidence to him. The Master may also have been aware that the defendant had been criticised as a dishonest witness by Laddie J in Allason and another v Random House UK Ltd (in a judgement given on 16th October 2001) because, without naming it, he noted that the defendant had been an untruthful witness in England. Nonetheless, he made it clear in paragraph 46 of his judgment that those matters would not be sufficient to justify a conclusion that his present evidence was incredible. I consider that he was right to exercise that caution."
Polarpark v Allason
Check paragraph 9 of the above judgment before you sue me Mr Allason.
Other parts of RA's case were found to be "simply hopeless" and were not even appealed by him.
The following is mild and qualified. It is paragraph 28 of the judgment:
"In assessing the credibility or otherwise of the defendant's evidence, the Master had well in mind his conclusion (not challenged on this appeal) that the defendant's assertion that he was the beneficial owner of Croftdown was a defence put forward dishonestly and in bad faith, together with other instances of apparent dishonesty on the part of the defendant, such as his assertion (contrary to earlier correspondence) that he had not seen the Deed of Settlement, and the conclusion of the Bermudian judge hearing the divorce proceedings that the defendant had given dishonest evidence to him. The Master may also have been aware that the defendant had been criticised as a dishonest witness by Laddie J in Allason and another v Random House UK Ltd (in a judgement given on 16th October 2001) because, without naming it, he noted that the defendant had been an untruthful witness in England. Nonetheless, he made it clear in paragraph 46 of his judgment that those matters would not be sufficient to justify a conclusion that his present evidence was incredible. I consider that he was right to exercise that caution."
No comments:
Post a Comment