|
STATEMENT OF
CASE CLAIMANT
BEAUFORD LLOYD SEWELL AND FIRST DEFENDANT V.
A. (VIJAY) AMIN (FORMER EMPLOYEE - BUSINESS LINK LONDON NORTHWEST - HARROW) 221 – CLAIMANT BEAUFORD LLOYD SEWELL and FIRST DEFENDANT V. A. (Vijay) AMIN ______________________ STATEMENT OF CASE
CHRONOLOGY (1)
The Claimant who at the relevant dates (1993 to 1998) -
resided at (2) In (1996/97) the Claimant
conducted a research project to determine the specialist training needs of
small firms and subsequently developed the “Tendering for Contracts”
training workshop programme and marketed this programme through his company -
Centre for Business Excellence Ltd. (3) The Claimant met the First Defendant V. A. (Vijay) AMIN while he was an employee of Business Link London North West, where his job function was that of Programme Manager. Between (1998
and March 2000) the Claimant had various meetings with the First Defendant – V.
A. (Vijay) AMIN in his attempt to get support for his “Tendering for Contracts” training workshop - which the Claimant had developed in 1997/98
and had successfully piloted on a number of occasions with his associates. The Claimant
also met the First Defendant V. A. (Vijay) AMIN at meetings organised by the The “Tendering
for Contracts “ training programme was in the form of a one-day workshop
designed to empower the small to medium enterprise in all the basic areas of
the contract tendering process. The
project was successfully delivered to delegates at a one-day workshop in south
west London prior to contact with The First Defendant , delegates were invited
from the Local Authorities contract list, the programme was supported by
Business Link London South West and London
Borough of Wandsworth. The first workshop was attended by (15)
delegates form all over the southeast of (4)
As a direct result of the various meetings and negotiations
between the Claimant and the First
Defendant V. A. (Vijay) AMIN, the Claimant signed a letter of agreement by way
of a contract with the First Defendant – to deliver the Claimant’s one day “Tendering for Contracts” training
workshop to ethnic minority businesses in (5) The First Defendant demanded in a
letter to the Claimant dated 5th – March – 1999, that
the Claimant (must supply to the Defendant) certain documents listed below, the First Defendant
further stipulated that the documents be delivered to him by 9th – April – 1999. (ref
– letter dated The
documents demanded by the First Defendant - included:- 5a) A biography of the presenters 5b) Copies of the presentation slides, – notes,
– handouts, etc 5c) The letter from the First Defendant V. A.
(Vijay) AMIN, dated of 5th – March – 1999, also clearly refers to previous
meetings that had taken place. 5d) At
the material times the First Defendant was employed by Business Link London
North West – a government business support agency – this agency was
subsequently placed into Members Voluntary Liquidation in 5e) From Company House records – it has been
established that the First Defendant transferred registered
Asian Business Initiative to his control – he renamed the company ABI
Associates Ltd – in 2001 5f) The First Defendant is a member of the Labour Party and through his connections
with
the Labour Party and under the banner of providing business support services to ethnic
minority businesses – the First Defendant and his company ABI Associates
Ltd has been
able to obtain government funds to promote the tendering for contracts
training
programme to ethnic minority
firms – under the banner “Fit – to- Supply. 5g) The First Defendant’s promotion material
contain information relating to its services its supporters and clients – It has been
observed that the First Defendant have changed the wording of the Claimants - "Tendering
for Contracts" Workshop Training Programme to “Fit to Supply” and may have
utilised such documents as provided by the Claimant – under contract to promote
their own programmes. 5h) The First Defendant have by their various
actions, utilised the contents of the Claimant's copyright work for there
own gain – contrary to the law of copyright and confidentiality. (6)
All documents, - and computer disks provided under the agreement with the
First Defendant – are subject of copyright, owned solely by the Claimant in
accordance with Section (9) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988).
6a) At no time was the copyright of these
materials or any other documents or the contents of
computer disks which were handed over to the First Defendant, as part of
the contract between
the Claimant and the First Defendant, assigned or licensed to be used by the First Defendant or third parties (7)
The
First Defendant have further utilised the contents of documents which are the
copyright of the Claimant to secure funds to promote the same programme to
ethnic minorities and others is in clear breach of the Claimant’s copyright,
which is restricted under (section #16) of the Copyright, Design and Patents
Act (1988). (8)
The
Claimant further claims that the First Defendant has used his position and
political connections with the Labour
Party to the detriment of the Claimant – by submitting details of copyright
work belonging to the Claimant - to public funding bodies and by so doing –
have secured public funds – to promote the copyright materials of the Claimant
for profit for himself, his company and his associates. (9)
As
a direct result of the actions of the First Defendant, namely, V. A. AMIN & ABI Associates, - the Claimant, - (9a) has suffered material loss an total loss of
income from the normal exploitation of his work, (9b) Due
to the requirements of public funding bodies to whom the Claimant has approached for support funds - these bodies have declined to support the Claimant on the grounds that they cannot fund similar
projects aimed at the same target audience. (10)
The Claimant submits
the following documents in support of his claim, 1) Correspondence
in the handwriting of the defendant -
(V. A. AMIN)
dated 2)
Correspondence from the First Defendant, namely V. A. AMIN – demanding that the Claimant supply
the copyright materials. Dated – (3) the workshop
training schedule – including the names of the Claimant’s
associates - dated 4)
the witness statements, profiles and names and contact details of
associates who were engaged by the Claimant
to facilitate the delivery of the workshop in the form of presenters. 5) documents pertaining to show the services
offered by the First Defendant
which clearly
shows that the Claimant’s copyright has been breached by
the First Defendant. 5)
documents obtained from the First Defendant’s web site – displaying information - indicating slight change of words – but
which clearly states the aims of the First Defendant and ABI Associates Ltd intended
project. ADDITIONAL DAMAGES CLAIMED (11)
The Claimant’s later submission for damages will include
the fact that because of the First Defendant’s special relationship with the
Labour Party and various other government funding agencies – The First
Defendant have been able to successfully utilise the contents of the Claimant’s
confidential documents to obtain public
funds – to promote and exploit the Claimant’s creation to the detriment of the
Claimant. (12)
the Claimant has been unable to benefit from his
creation – since it is not normally possible for public funds to be utilised to
promote the same project to the same audience in the same locality. (13)
Further – because the First Defendant have obtained
public funds to promote what is in effect the Claimant’s training project – to
the same market place as the Claimant would normally have promoted his project –
but without the benefit of public funds - the Claimant has been further disadvantaged
and has suffered additional unquantifiable losses to his business efforts. (14)
The Claimant has been made aware that The First Defendant is a member
of the : (Government / Department of Trade and Industry /
Small Business Service) created and
appointed “Ethnic Minority Business
Forum” - the Claimant is also aware
that as a member of this forum, - The First Defendant has enjoyed fact finding
trips to The
information above was made available to the Claimant by the – Chairperson of
the “Ethnic Minority Business Forum” during a telephone conversation The
Chairperson of the “Ethnic Minority Business Forum” declined to have a face to
face meeting or to assist the Claimant in any way in his efforts to get justice
– on the grounds that it would upset the Small Business Service. (15)
The Claimant has written to the head of the Small
Business Service – Mr Martin Wyn-Griffith in relation to (3) three substantive
issues – ·
the Claimant having had extensive contacts with the government’s
business support agencies since (1995) - in his efforts to get his business projects
started. ·
has discovered to his detriment – that the same agency
or members of the agency to which the Claimant had approached for help – had utilised
the Claimant’s material to develop similar services – which is then offered by
these agencies as their own ·
The head of the Small Business Services – after some
delay has declined to become involved. ·
The head of the Small Business service by his lack of
action – has failed in his duty of care to the Claimant and discriminated
against the Claimant in favour of the Defendant and further has · Denied the Claimant’s Human Rights – under, Article 1 of Protocol 1: and Article 14: The Prohibition of Discrimination in the Enjoyment of Convention rights ¶ Ref: – Human Rights Act - Public Authorities 19. The Act requires public
authorities to act compatibly with the Convention rights. ‘Public authorities’
are not defined exhaustively but the term covers three broad categories:
(16)
In his pursuit of a just settlement of his claims, the
Claimant has written to the Secretary of State – responsible for the Department
of Trade and Industry and the Small
Business Service – (17)
In his reply the
Secretary of State has declined to
take any action that would justly settle the
issues raised by the Claimant – In his
correspondence with the Claimant, the Secretary of State has claimed that The
First Defendant namely – V. A. AMIN and ABI Associates Ltd are a private
company - and it was not his duty to get
involved in such matters. (18)
In further correspondence with the Claimant, the legal
representative of the Secretary of State - has deemed it appropriate and proper
to threaten the Claimant with legal action. (19)
The legal representative of the Secretary of State failed
or declined to inform the court - at the
hearing at the Guildford County Court - on 18-Aug-2003 – of the true nature
of the relationships between The First Defendant - (V. A. AMIN
- ABI Associates Ltd) and the various government agencies, namely, ·
The
Department of Trade and Industry ·
The Small
Business Service ·
The Ethnic
Minority Business Forum ·
One ·
Fast
Forward Grants ·
London
Development Agency ·
The ·
The
Government Office for (20)
The Claimant has written to several other government agencies and
Members of Parliament – in relation to these and other substantive matters –
all have declined to get involved or take any justifiable action. (21)
Although the Claimant’s “Tendering for Contracts”
workshop training has been described as “innovative”
in 2002) by the government created (“Small
Firms Enterprise Development Initiative” – a business support accreditation agency)
- (22)
As a direct result of the actions of the First
Defendant- listed above – the support
from the Second Defendant’s and the failure of the Secretary of State and other
government agencies to take justifiable action in these matters – the Claimant,
now aged (62), ·
has been un-employed since (1997) ·
has suffered total loss of income – due to the fact
that he ·
has been unable to promote or exploit any of his creations
– which the First Defendant – in effect have stolen with the silent approval of
the Second Defendant’s and other government
business support agencies. 23. The First Defendant - being a former employer
of the Second Defendants - was in an advantageous position and would have
been very well acquainted with all the Second Defendant's Funding Agencies and
Contract Providers - prior to activating his company – ABI Associates in 2001. 24.
From Companies House records - it was discovered that The First
Defendant's firm – ABI Associated Ltd, was first registered
in (1995) - as The Asian Business Initiative – The Second First Defendant would have been aware
of this fact and the intrinsic relationship between government agencies and the First
Defendant. 25. The Applicant’s complaint to the court is
that under Article 6.1 (right to a fair trial) of the European
Convention on Human Rights and his right of access to a fair trial which has been
denied and perverted by the actions of the Second First Defendants 26.
The Claimant further also invokes
Articles 13 (right to an effective remedy)
of the Convention. 27.
The Claimant intends to scrutinise both sets documents held by the First
Defendants and the Second Defendants – and
equally the Claimant request the right to scrutinise all such documents from other funding or contract
agencies - with which the First
Defendant have either secured funding and / or
contracts. 28. The Claimant firmly believes that the First Defendant
has breached the Claimant's copyright - by including details
of the Claimant's “Tendering for Contracts" workshop training programme in the
details of documents that the First Defendant have submitted to the second Defendant and other
funding and / or contract agencies represented or under the control of the Second
Defendant - to obtain Non-publicised contracts or Public Funds for the
delivery of such services (i.e.) fit-to-supply and / or tendering for
contracts. 29.
The Claimant submits that - V. A. AMIN / ABI Associates Ltd - is not a private company - in the normal sense of the word– but
instead – a company that is supported almost exclusively by government funding
agencies and government departments which are under the control of the
Secretary of State for Small Firms. 29. As a direct result of the actions of both
Defendants - the Claimant; ·
has been forced to live on social security benefit
since 1997 - ·
has been denied access to legal aid, ·
is unable to find other suitable employment due to his
age ·
has been denied his Human Rights ·
has been discriminated against by the Second
Defendant’s in favour of the First Defendant STATEMENT OF TRUTH I , the Claimant, believe that the
information included in this Statement of Case are true. Signed: Beauford Lloyd Sewell The claimant represents himself and
will accept service of the proceedings at the following address: - B. L. Sewell, 16 Westdene Meadows,
Cranleigh, |