|
IN
THE Claim No BF102062 BETWEEN Claimant
Beauford Lloyd Sewell Company
Name (Centre for Business Excellence Ltd) AND Defendants MCB.RJO.RDW.012755.7 Date: IN
THE Claim No BF102062 Claimant Beauford
Lloyd Sewell Centre
for Business Excellence Ltd and Defendants MCB.RJO.RDW.012755.7 Date: 15/07/07 IN THE BETWEEN Claim No BF102062 Beauford Lloyd Sewell Claimant MCB.RJO.RDW.012755.7 ____________________ STATEMENT of CASE
HISTORICAL FACTS AND
CURRENT EVENTS By way of background information –
the Claimant wishes to put before the court the following information; ·
AT the relevant time, the Claimant had spent almost twenty
five (25) years, (1970 to 1993), in the computer industry in the ·
The Claimant returned from ·
The Claimant was refused Legal Aid – on the
grounds that he had insufficient evidence – this evidence was available from
the (GOL), Government Office for London – GOL
refused to provide the documents from which the evidence could have been
obtained – on the grounds of the Data Protection Act. ·
The documents was
eventually obtained after the Claimant wrote to Mr Stephen Byers in 1999. ·
between (1995 and 2003) the
Claimant has had (5) attempts to
deprive him of his business by (2) - private firms who were
successfully repulsed by the Claimant and
·
(3) government sponsored -
business support agencies charged with providing assistance
to the un-employed. ·
The Claimants first attempted to become
self-employed
in (1993/94), this
effort has resulted in the current proceedings, – The Claimant was subsequently,
forced to attempt the development of a new business – however
– before the Claimant could determine if the New Project was viable and therefore had any chance of
success – it had to be Market Tested, this
meant conducting Pilot Projects. As a direct result of the piloting
process, the Claimant’s second attempt at
becoming self-employed has again
been successfully pillaged by a former employee of a government support agency
– for whom the Claimant had previously conducted a workshop of his new project. This firm has successfully
presented the Claimants new project as his own, to a government funding agency and has subsequently
received funding to promote the project - this firm operates under the Not-For-Profit banner they are not
required to be registered with The Charities Commission. The Results As a direct result of the
incidents listed above is that the Claimant has found it impossible to; (a) find suitable employment
(b) gain employment in
the areas of his expertise – (c) become self-employed. (d) the Claimant's current age of (62), has increased his difficulties and reduced his possibilities he has
therefore been forced to exist on Social Security Benefits and has
utilised such assistance received to retrain himself in various fields in the
hope of one day either; (d) becoming
self-employed or (e) finding
employment The Claimant has had to give up completing his MBA at the =========================================================================== (1.0.0.0) THE STATEMENT OF CASE The Claimant’ statement of case is
based on the “Overriding Objective” as laid
down in the New Civil Procedure Rules (Part1, page1), the Claimant wishes to
present his statement of case to the court – based on the facts, - these
facts are fully supported both by witness statements and by documentary
evidence and can be further substantiated by a named search of
various governmental departments from (1995 to the Present) – these include
the following, ·
The Prime Minister – Mr Tony Blair ·
The Department of Trade and Industry, ·
The Department for Employment and Education, ·
The Department for Social Services, ·
The Government Office for (1.0.0.1) In support of his claim against the
Defendants - the Claimant wishes to put before the court documentary evidence relating to correspondence with various
government ministers, MP’s and MEP, since 1996. (1.0.0.2) In support of his claim against the
Defendants - the Claimant wishes to put before the court documentary evidence relating to the conduct of the affairs of
West London Training and Enterprise
Council in general an the actions and conduct of the Chief Executive Dr Phil Blackburn in particular. (1.0.0.3) In support of his case – the Claimant
also wishes to put before the court – the conduct of the Main Consultant to Dr Phil Blackburn – Ms Meenu Vora . In
presenting this documentary evidence relating to the affairs of Enterprise
Council – the
Claimant wishes to demonstrate that the conduct of the Chief Executive
was contrary to the rules and duties of directors in general and the Operating Rules of the (TEC) Training and (1.0.0.4) In
presenting this documentary evidence relating to the affairs of I.T. Skills
Forum – Managing
Director – Ms Meenu Vora, – the Main Consultant to Dr Phil Blackburn
– the Claimant
wishes to demonstrate that the conduct of the Managing Director of I.T. Skills Forum
was contrary to the rules and duties of directors. By presenting such documentary
evidence - the Claimant wishes to demonstrate that the two named persons listed
above were primarily responsible and accountable for their actions in the
sequence of events which ensued. (1.0.0.5) THE
CLAIMANT'S PROFILE AND BACKGROUND The
Claimant wishes to lay before the court the following documents in support of
his case; (1.0.0.6) the Claimant’s Professional Profile and education, (exhibit 1.0.0.5) (B. L. Sewell - Personal Profile) (1.0.0.6) the Claimant’s Integrated Multi-Media Business Support Centre - Proposal as developed in (1995) - (exhibit 1.0.0.6) –
(IMBSC Document) (1.0.0.7) Documentary evidence that
establish the fact - that the Claimant's Integrated Multi-Media Business Support Centre - Proposal was in the possession of the Defendants at the material
times, (exhibit 1.06.1 – Letter from Jeff Taylor, 1995 to the Claimant dated (1.0.0.8) Documentary evidence
relating to the Claimant’s projected business as contained in his Business and
Marketing Plans, - developed in 1995, (exhibit
1.0.0.8 - Business
and Marketing Plans) (1.0.0.9) Documentary evidence which establishes
the fact that during the relevant times the Claimant had various correspondence
in the form of letters relating to the Claimant’s "Integrated Multi-Media
Business Training Centre" project with
the following government ministers, members of parliament and members of the
European Parliament; ·
Mr Michael Bichard, (former
Joint Permanent Secretary) ·
Mr Richard Balfe,,MEP ·
Mr Robert Evans,,MEP ·
Ms Harriot Harmon,,MP ·
Mr Andrew Smith,,(former Head of
the Department for Education and Employment) ·
Mr Brian Glickman,, then, Head of
the Government Office for ·
et al ·
The Government Office for (exhibit 1.0.0.9 - Letters to
and from government departments) (1.0.1.0) Documentary evidence which shows that during
the relevant times (1995 – to 1996) the Claimant had extensive face-to-face discussions, -
various correspondence by letter and fax with the
following Senior Managers of West
London Training and Council, namely; ·
Letter from Jeff Taylor, 1995 - Enterprise
Link Manager - ( (exhibit 1.0.1.0 – letter form Jeff St Paul) ·
Mr John Murray - Business
Development Director - ( ·
Mr Jeff St Paul – General Manager - West London Enterprise - (dated
AND ·
Mr Chris Dunn
- Managing Director – Enterprise Futures Ltd - (dated An external
Consulting Firm under contract to West London Training and Enterprise Council (1.0.1.1) Documentary
evidence in the form of “Market Research” reports
conducted on behalf of the Claimant
– and other independent research papers relating to the Claimant’s project – dated 1996.
(exhibit - 1.0.1.1a) - (the
telemarketing bureau) (exhibit 1.0.1.1b)
- (The (1.0.1.2) WITNESS STATEMENT (1.0.1.3) Documentary evidence in the form of witness statements – in support of the
Claimant’s case against the
Defendants, (exhibit 1.0.1.3) (1.2.0.0) TEC OPERATING MANUAL (1.2.0.1) Documentary
evidence relating to the conduct of Training and Enterprise Council’s by
the Secretary
of State, Title, “TEC Operating Manual”, (exhibit 1.2.0.1) (1.2.1.0) PARTNERS IN REGENERATION (1.2.1.1) Documentary
evidence relating to the purposes to which the (ESF) European
Social Fund programme –
Title- “Partners in Regeneration” (Sub-title) – The Challenge Fund, could be put, their
objectives and benchmarks, (exhibit 1.2.1.1a
- ref: Partners in Regeneration Document
– dated March – 1996 (exhibit 1.2.1.1b - ref - Partners in Regeneration Document – Bidding
Timetable - ref: page 12) (exhibit 1.2.1.1c -
ref: Bid No: 96/139/WLTEC – one page document) (1.2.1.2) Documentary
evidence pertaining to the conduct of the Chief Executive of West London Training and (exhibit
1.2.1.2) ref: WLTEC – Bid Proforma Document (1.2.1.3) Documentary
evidence relating to the support for the project as outlined
by the Chief Executive and others acting for - and in collaboration with the
Chief Executive of West London Training and enterprise Council, -
(exhibit - 1.2.1.3 - ref:
various letters of support for the project (1.3.0.0) EXPERT FINANCIAL ASSESSMENT (1.3.0.1) Documentary
expert summary evidence from the records
supplied by Companies House relating to the conduct of the financial
affairs of Training and Enterprise
Council under the stewardship of the Chief Executive – Dr
Phil Blackburn, - (exhibit 1.3.0.1) (1.3.0.2) Documentary
expert summary relating to the financial affairs of the “Main Consultant” as
obtained from Companies House, - (exhibit
- 1.3.0.2) (1.3.0.3) Documentary
evidence in the form of an Expert Financial Assessment
of the financial relationship and business between – the
Chief Executive of “ Managing Director I. T. Skills Forum , Ms Meenu
Vora – as obtained from Companies House, (exhibit
- 1.3.0.3) (1.3.0.4) The information relating to these persons is presented
without prejudice to the legal rights
of either person – however the information is presented as a method by
which certain statements, correspondence, actions and the
facts may be clarified and verified in accordance with the Overriding Objective of Justice as
outlined in (CPR - 1.1). (1.4.0.0) THE PARTICULARS RELATING TO SPECIFIC EVENTS (1.4.0.1) The Claimant first made contact with the Defendants
on or about (June-1995) as a result of advertisements
by the Defendants and other sources, and made clear his desire
to start his own business and his intention to secure government assistance for his
project, (1.4.0.2) In Dec – 1995, as a
direct result of continuing discussions between the Claimant and Letter from Jeff Taylor, 1995, in his
capacity as Enterprise Link Manager for the Defendants, the Claimant
presented Letter from Jeff Taylor, 1995 with a copy of his proposal (exhibit
1.4.0.2) for his comments with regards to its acceptability as a
project suitable for government
funding, (1.4.0.3) As a direct
result the discussions relating to this specific project Letter from Jeff Taylor, 1995 – replied in a detailed fax – sent to the Claimant on ( (exhibit 1.4.0.2) (1.4.0.4) Between
the ( weekly meetings and discussions with the Defendants - who
encouraged the Claimant both verbally and in
writing to pursue his objective of
starting his own business. (exhibit 1.4.0.4) - letters from WLTEC (1.4.0.5) Cuncurrently,
the Claimant also had discussions with Mr Jeff St Paul – General
Manger of the
West London Enterprise Agency – the main service delivery agency of West London Training and Enterprise Agency. (exhibit 1.4.0.5) - letters
from WLEA (1.4.0.6) The
Claimant also had discussions with Mr John Murray – in his
capacity of Business
Development Director of West London Training and Enterprise Council –
(corroborative exhibit 1.5.6) dated (1.4.0.7) The
Defendants finally entered into a contract between the
Defendants and the Claimant on ( the terms and conditions of the contract included the following
pre- conditions; (exhibit 1.4.0.7) – letter
from Letter from Jeff Taylor, 1995 relating to handing over Business Plan (1.5.0.0) LAW OF CONTRACT (1.5.0.1) The Claimant has relied on The
Law of Contract for England and Wales in his submissions,
vis-à-vis that the Defendants by way of various communications in writing, - in person, by fax and
other means Intended to conclude a contract with the Claimant – and in effect did
conclude such a contract. (exhibit – 1.5.0.0) - LAW OF CONTRACT DOCUMENT FOR section 1.1.1.2 - intention to create legal relations section 1.1.2 - Commercial
agreements section 1.1.2.1 - Continuance
of offers section 1.1.2.2 - Communication
of offers section 1.1.3 -
Acceptance section 1.1.5 -
Consideration section 1.1.5.1 -
Performance of an existing duty section 2.1 -
The incorporation of terms section 2.2 -
Statement of the parties section 2.5.2 -
The common law “rules” section 3.2 -
The nature of misrepresentation section 3.3.1 -
Fraudulent misrepresentation section 5.1.1 -
Expectation of loss section 5.1.2 -
Measure of damages section 5.1.3 -
Time for assessment of loss section 5.1.4 -
Reliance interest section 5.1.5 -
Consequential losses (1.5.0.2) The Claimant wishes to put before the
court – the fact that the Defendants demanded both verbally and in writing – that before the Defendants could assist
the Claimant, the Claimant is required to hand over
his business and marketing plans as a pre-condition to receiving the required assistance
from the Defendants – the Claimant therefore
regard these actions
by the Defendants as proof of constituting acceptance by the Defendants under
the Law of Contract. (exhibit 1.3.0.2) - (letter from Letter from Jeff Taylor, 1995 dated, (letter
from Letter from Jeff Taylor, 1995 dated, (letter from Sophie
Hanaford dated, (letter from Letter from Jeff Taylor, 1995
dated, (letter to Dr Phil
Blackburn dated, July-1996) (letter from Nicola
Brentnall – PA to Dr Phil Blackburn - (Member of the British Labour Party) – dated, (letter from Dr Phil Blackburn (letter from Robert Kyle
dated, (1.5.0.3) Documentary
evidence in the form of the West London Training and Enterprise Council main "Bid Document" (exhibit
1.5.0.3) - ref: (1.5.0.4) Documentary
evidence in the form of correspondence between the
Chief Executive of West London Training and Enterprise
Council – and third parties - letters of support on the (06th and 07th June 1996) (exhibit
1.5.0.4) - (1.5.0.5) Documentary evidence relating to SRB bid deadline and the last date on which bids must be
submitted. (exhibit
1.5.0.5 - Bid Timetable Document) (1.5.0.6) The Relationship between
the Defendants and third parties (exhibit 1.5.0.6 - ( Management Structure) (1.5.0.7) The Claimant wishes to put before the court –
that in effect – under
the Law of Contract, - a commercial agreement was in place and
therefore a contract under the law - did exist
between the Defendants and the Claimant.
(exhibit
1.5.0.7 – (section 1.1.1.2 to 5.1.5) (1.5.0.8) The Claimant
also wishes to put before the court the fact that – under the procedures outlined in the TEC Operating Manual – (exhibit 1.2.0) from the Secretary
of State – the Defendants did have a duty to assist the Claimant as part of their Operating
Objectives, as laid down by the Secretary of State – TEC
Operating Manual – (exhibit 1.2.0) Section2, sub-section 100, sub-section
(d), para. (I, ii, iii), (1.5.0.9) The Defendants
– stated categorically – in their Bid Proposal and Bid Document that the funds requested was meant specifically to address one
of the main issues stipulated in:- (exhibit - 1.3.8a) - TEC
Operating - Manual ( exhibit - 1.3.8b) - Partners in Regeneration- Manual (i.e.) that of providing
services to the un-employed and to assist those who wished to become Self-Employment of Minority groups, (exhibit 1.3.8a)
the Bid Proforma (exhibit 1.3.8b)
the (1.5.1.0) The
Defendants were well aware that the Claimant satisfied the condition of being un-employed for the relevant period of time and wished to
start his own business and therefore was fully conscious of the implications of their
actions, (1.5.1.1) The
Claimant wishes to impress upon the court – that based on the evidence,
the actions of the
Defendants were deliberately designed to deceive all concerned in general and in particular to deprive the Claimant
of his business, a task that they achieved – these acts by the Defendants are
forbidden by various laws, (1.5.1.2) The
Defendants as an agency – set by government to provides services
for persons such as the Claimant – were well aware of their special responsibilities
to the Claimant – as laid down
in (exhibit 1.4.1a and 1.4.1b) and which they stated so categorically in their Bid Document to the Government Office
for (exhibit 1.4.1c and 1.4.1d) (1.5.1.3) The Defendants – failed to comply with the own
undertaking in; (exhibit 1.4.2a
- 1.4.2b – 1.4.2c and 1.4.2d) with regards to the Claimant and were fully conscious of the consequences to
the Claimant as a result of this failure on their part, (1.5.1.4) The Defendants were fully conscious of
their actions at all times and equally conscious of the effect that their actions would have on the
Claimant, (1.6.0.0) THE
SPECIFIC CONDITIONS OF THE CONTRACT ARE AS FOLLOWS:- (1.6.0.1) The
Claimant is required by the Defendants to join the Defendants Business
Start-up Program, (1.6.0.2) The
Claimant is required to provide the Defendants
with a copy of the Claimant’s Business
Plans - Marketing Plans and other
documents relating to his intended business, (1.6.0.3) The
Claimant is required to have the sum of £15,000 from his own
funds which would be retained by the Claimant but earmarked as part of his
business start-up costs, this sum was required as a
pre-condition that would enable the Claimant to apply to join the Government’s
Loan Guarantee Scheme, from which the Claimant could expect to obtain a loan of £30,000. (1.6.0.4) The terms and conditions as stipulated by the Defendants
were that if the Claimant met the pre-conditions stated above, the Defendants agrees to
provide the Claimant with all the
necessary financial support, mentoring support and
entrepreneurial training support, plus any
other support required by the Claimant to start and maintain his own
business. (1.6.0.5) The
Claimant as is customary -
when dealing with government agencies in such matters, anticipated that the Defendants – being a government agency
– setup to assist persons such as the Claimant - would observe the Law of Contract,
- and the Law of Copyright, (1.6.0.6) Equally
the Claimant anticipated that he Defendants by their ensuing actions - were in acting
accordance with their statutory duty as
an agent set up by Government to provide such support to persons such as the Claimant. (exhibit
1.5.6a, - TEC Operating Manual -
para, ) ( exhibit 1.5.6b, Partners in Regeneration - para, ) (1.6.0.7) The Defendants by contracting with the
Claimant is equally subject to:- (a), the Law
of Confidentiality, vis-à-vis - not releasing to any third parties in part or
in whole
any details of the Claimant’s business and marketing plans and/or business proposals, - or any other documents entrusted to the
Defendants by the Claimant. (b), and by not
using the said documents in part or in whole for its own purposes. (1.7.0.0) SUPPORTING
EVIDENCE (1.7.0.1) The Claimant’s statement of case aims to show and
demonstrate that:- The
document submitted by the Defendants as their “Bid Document” to
the Government Office for “Proposal for an Integrated
Business Support Centre” - (exhibit – 1.6.1)) the
Claimants - “Business and Marketing Plans” - (exhibit – 1.6.1a) the
Claimants – “Research Information” - (exhibit - 1.6.1b) (1.7.0.2) The Claimant through his
investigations - has discovered that the
Chief Executive of West London
Training and Enterprise Council – and others, namely the “Main Consultant”
to the project,
was actively involved and actively practiced wide scale deception in his
acquisition of
support for this project and in the presentation of documents to the Government
Office for London, (1.7.0.3) The Claimant can demonstrate that –
the Chief Executive of West London Training and Enterprise
Council – was actively involved and actively colluded with a third party
(i.e.): the Main
Consultant, Ms Menu Vora-
to facilitate this deception, (exhibit
- 1.6.3) – various letters of support for
the project - (1.7.0.4) The Claimant can demonstrate – that, the Chief Executive
of West London Training and Enterprise Council – utilised the
contents of documents supplied by the Claimant to the Defendants,
in whole and in part, in his bid to the Government Office for London - an institution who subsequently awarded the defendants a
contract in (3) phases - to the sum of
£1.76(m) million pounds. (1.7.0.5) By way of evidence of the actions of
the Chief Executive of West London Training and Enterprise
Council - The Claimant wishes to put before court – documents obtained from Companies House
– these documents contain the facts that the third party acted as the Main Consultant to the project being
envisaged by the Defendants, the documents presented - being
the Annual Reports and Annual Returns of the “Third Party” mentioned previously, - (exhibit
- 1.7.0.5) - (1.7.0.6) By so doing, the Claimant also aim to
demonstrate to the court that – (a)
the third party was set
up by the Defendants (b) the third party had no in-depth knowledge of
the subject in question vis-à-vis the provision of Information
Technology Services and (c) could not have
provided the services for which it claims competence. (1.7.0.7) That the Claimant’s current position –
vis-à-vis unemployment, lack of means and dire financial status is
not due to (1) poor judgement, (2) misfortune, (3) an accident – but is directly
attributable to and a direct result of – the actions of the Defendants –
vis-à-vis - the Chief
Executive of West London Training and Enterprise Council. (1.7.0.8) The
Claimant also wishes to put before the court the facts that – although the Defendants are in Members Voluntary Liquidation, this was a policy decreed by the Government, (a) the assets that resulted from the actions of
the Defendants against the Claimant had previously been transferred to another company – (i.e.) ”Business Link (b) The assets transferred by the Defendants to
the other company has served both to provide employment
and generate substantial revenues since its inception in (1997) – to the present time. (1.8.0.0) THE CLAIMANT aims to
show and demonstrate that:- (1.8.0.1) The
Defendants did not possess the required detailed knowledge that; (a)
would have allowed them
to embark on such a project before contact with the Claimant – (b)
there is no evidence to show that the Defendants
intended to embark on such a project before (September 1996) - after the Claimant had written a letter of
complaint regarding the lack of agreed business start-up support that was
promised by the Defendants to the Claimant. (1.8.0.2) The Main
Consultant to the project had no IT knowledge that would enable her to act
as consultant or
provide advise on such a project. (1.8.0.3) The Main Consultant made annual
returns and annual accounts to Companies House between (1995 and
1998) that were highly questionable and as a
direct result was advised by
Companies House to cease trading in 1998, (1.8.0.4) The
Main Consultant made dubious statements
in support of the proposed project to the Government Office for (1.8.0.5) The Main Consultant acting with the
knowledge and support of the Chief Executive – actively solicited support for this project by; (a) compiling a letter of support for the
project, (b) contacting
others by phone requesting the required support, (c) faxing the
letter to these persons with the objective that (d)
they sign and fax the letter back to the Defendants or in
some cases send the letter by post (d)
this was then presented by the Defendants as proof of support for the project
by persons
from the business and academic community. (exhibit - 1.8.0.5) - the contents
and date of the letters of support) (1.8.0.6) The Claimant wishes to draw attention
to the fact that this process adopted by the Consultant, acting in consort with and behalf
of the Defendants (i.e.) the Chief Executive Dr
Phil Blackburn - was possible due to the
nature of the position of West London Training and
enterprise Council in general and the Chief Executive in particular. (1.8.0.7) The Claimant wishes to put forward the
hypothesis that the parties from whom the Consultant and the Defendants obtained the letters of support for the project
– were at no time aware
of such a project - before the date on
which the telephone call – requesting support
for the project – was made. (1.8.0.8) The Main Consultant to the proposed project had inadequate IT knowledge
that would qualify her to act as consultant or provide advise on such a project. (1.8.0.9)
The relevant documents involved
and the relevant dates during which these correspondence
and communications took place between the Main
Consultant, the Defendants,
the Chief Executive and others - and the main
supporters of the project are contained in (exhibit – 1.8.0.9) (1.9.0.0)
THE DEFENDANTS MODUS OPERANDI (1.9.0.1) At all material times the Defendants
carried on business as a “Training and Council”, an agency set up by
Government, whose primary function was the provision of financial,
training, and other business support functions to small firms, and/or Male
and/or Female
individuals such as the Claimant, who wished to start their own businesses. – (exhibit - 1.9.0.1) (1.9.0.2) In reliance on and induced by the
weekly meetings, discussions and representations offered by the Defendants the Claimant
agreed to comply with all the of stipulated conditions and statements
made by the Defendants by signing the documents presented by the Defendants,
the Claimant also started proceedings to effect the sale of his house and to
put its contents
in storage, in order to comply with section 1c above, thereafter the Claimant was
totally dependent on the actions of the Defendants
who then proceeded to provide the Claimant
with some – but not all of the support services under the agreed terms
of the contract.
(1.9.0.3) Further or in the alternative,
before, during and at the particular times of the contract, the Claimant
made clear to the Defendants expressly in writing, verbally by telephone and by
fax communications and in weekly meetings with the Defendants,
his desire to start his own business and the sources of his
funds, that would allow him, the Claimant to meet the conditions
as set out by the Defendants in (exhibit - 1.9.0.3) (1.9.0.4) Relates to the
original proposal, developed by the Claimant exhibit (1.06),
and
Communicated to the Defendants
– in 1995) – the specific comments by Letter from Jeff Taylor, 1995,
Business Development
Director of West London Training and enterprise Council – in a letter
to the Claimant - dated (xx-xx-1995) - exhibit – 1.9.0.4) (1.9.0.5) Relates to various correspondence between
The Main Consultant had no
in-depth knowledge of (I.T.) Information
Technology
and as a direct result of this lack of
knowledge, could not have provided the services
alluded to in her correspondence with the Chief
Executive of West London Training and
(exhibit - 1.9.0.5a), IT Skills Forum Annual Reports and Annual Returns – (1996 – 1998) inclusive.
(exhibit - 1.9.0.5b), letter from the Main
Consultant to Dr Phil Blackburn dated ( (2.0.1.1) Correspondence between the Main Consultant and the Chief Executive
of Training
and Enterprise Council –Dr Phil Blackburn – dated (1996) (exhibit (2.0.1) (2.0.1.2) Correspondence between the Main Consultant and various third parties who were
asked
by the Main Consultant and members
of West London Training and
Council to support the new
project in writing, by fax and by the pledging of funds .
– dated (xx
- September - 1996) - (exhibit
2.0.1.2) (2.0.1.3) Correspondence between the Claimant
and various Management Personnel
employed
by West London Training and Enterprise Council
to provide start-up business
advice
and counselling to individuals - (dated 1995 to 1996) - exhibit – 2.0.1.3) (2.0.1.6) The Claimant wishes to draw the court's
attention to the facts - that – the actions of
deliberate non-co-operation and lack of information pursued
since (1997)
by the GOVERNMENT OFFICE FOR LONDON – is designed
to be extremely generous, supportive, preferential and
rewarding to the Defendants WEST LONDON TRAINING & ENTERPRISE COUNCIL Ltd – in general
- and – Dr Phil Blackburn in particular While at the same time their actions is designed to be:- Extremely prejudicial, harmful and detrimental to the
Claimant, (3.0.0.0) CONCLUSION (3.0.0.1) The
Claimant concludes his Statement of Case by asking the court to look
closely at all the relevant documentary
evidence presented, ·
correspondence between
the Defendants and the Claimant, ·
independent witness
statements in support of the Claimant, ·
correspondence between
the Claimant and various government departments, ·
correspondence
between the Defendants and various Third Parties The Claimant
is of the view that he has established the Necessary Proof that; (a) he did possess
such Equity - in the form
of his "Integrated Multi-Media
Business Training Centre" business
proposal, (b) his business and
marketing plans as outlined in his claim,
(c) prior to his contacts with the Defendants, West London Training and Council, (d) and that West
London Training and Enterprise Council, did, contrary to various laws subsequently utilised such documents to secure funds to
develop a similar project as
outlined in the Claimant' documents for their benefit to the detriment of the Claimant. (3.0.0.2) Based
on the bona fide of the Main Consultant to Dr Phil
Blackburn, Ms Meenu Vora, the
fact that despite detailed reports to Companies House. ·
No mention was ever made of her
involvement in producing either research materials or general consultancy or
any other consultancy involving the use of “Multi-Media Training”
for Small to Medium Enterprises. ·
The Job Description
she gave herself while Managing Director of “IT SKILLS
FORUM” as “Desk Researcher” equally does not contain any
such references. ·
The Transfer of Assets to
the value of £335,203 from West London Training and
Enterprise Council to “IT
SKILLS FORUM” is questionable. (Ref. : - IT SKILLS FORUM” 1996 Annual Reports) ·
Articles allegedly written by “Ms Meenu Vora
” were equally spurious, none was based on any form of research, but based instead
on comments made by other persons with whom she ha made contact. ·
Despite prolonged and detailed
search, the Claimant can find no evidence that Ms Meenu Vora had any IT skills
that would merit the revenues generated over the lifetime of her company "IT
SKILL FORUM" (Ref.: - IT SKILLS FORUM – 1996 to 1998
inclusive) ·
No mention is made of her skills as
an IT Consultant in the Annual Reports and Annual
Returns lodged with companies House over the relevant period ·
The amount of revenues attributed to
“Members Subscriptions” in these accounts and reports could not
have been possible for the following reasons:- ·
(a) “IT SKILLS
FORUM” in its brief history - comprising of two (2) persons
was incapable of producing anything of value that would be equivalent to the
alleged subscription fee income. ·
(b) There has
never been, nor are there in existence a similar forum in the ·
(c) The Claimant will not speculate on how “IT
SKILLS FORUM” through an employee level that
never exceeded two persons and who had no saleable assets could
generate such large amounts over such a short time span (1994 to 1998). (3.0.0.3) The Claimant is of the view that; ·
under the Law of Contract of England
and ·
And that the Defendants did deliberately
and with malice aforethought - violate such contract for their own benefit and
the benefit of others, ·
That as a direct result of such
unlawful acts, the Claimant has suffered catastrophe loss and deprivation of
his business, livelihood and independent means of existence, ·
That (a) The Claimant is of the view that he has established
the bona fide of his case under UK Law, namely, that he did have a contract with
the Defendants:- and (b) Among the objectives of this contract were
the performance of certain tasks, vis-à-vis, providing all
the assistance required by the Claimant - that would allow him to set up his "Integrated Multi-Media
Business Training Centre", (c) The
correspondence from WEST LONDON TRAINING AND ENTERPRISE COUNCIL verify the
verbal assurances given at the time, that this was the main objective of such a contract. (4.0.0.0) THE CLAIMANT'S - PARTICULARS OF LOSS
The Defendants by their actions; (4.0.0.1) Are in Breach
of Contract, having
failed to honour all of the terms and conditions of the contract as agreed
at the material times, namely to provide all required assistance to enable the Claimant to
start his own business, These
action by the Defendants of using the Claimant's documents to obtaining public funds to set up a similar project in
competition with the Claimant The
Defendants in the person of Dr Phil Blackburn was aware of the consequences of
his actions and deliberately by his actions deliberately induced a Breach of
Contract to the detriment of the Claimant. The actions
of the Defendants, namely Dr Phil Blackburn induced others in his employment to
subscribe to this Breach of Contract, and to falsify statements made in support
of his efforts vis-à-vis to secure £1.76m pounds sterling from
the Government Office for All
subsequent actions by the Defendants were extremely prejudicial and resulted in
an adverse and detrimental effect on the success of the Claimants business
prospects Ref.: Law of
Contract (4.0.0.2) Are in Breach
of Confidence, under the accepted formula for breach
of confidence set out in ( used or disclosed: b)
has been
communicated or acquired confidentially, i.e., where a reasonable recipient would know that confidentiality was intended or expected, c) is, or has
been, used or disclosed by the confidant without authority to the detriment of Ref.: Ref.: (Lord
Denning - MR 1967) - The law on
this subject does not depend on any implied contract. It depends on the broad
principle of equity that he who received information in confidence shall not
take unfair advantage of it.) (4.0.0.4) THE
OBLIGATION OF CONFIDENCE ·
Information will be given in
situations which impose an obligation of confidence where there is a
relationship between the 2 parties which would lead a reasonable man to
conclude that the information should be kept secret. (4.0.0.5) Are also in Breach of Copyright under the Copyright,
Designs and Patent Act (1988), by their actions of: a) passing on the
contents of the Claimant’s business plans and other documents, in part or in whole to third parties, b)
making use of such information as
contained in the Claimant's Business Proposal,
and Business and Marketing Plans for their benefit to the detriment of the Claimant, •
(ref:. (CDP act of
1988), - under the section(s): - •
(Moral Rights of Authors) •
(Entrepreneurs and Authors) •
(Market Power and Individual Works) (4.0.0.6) The Defendants by their actions of
utilising the contents of the said documents, in part or in whole, provided to them
by the Claimant in confidence, in their tender document
to the Government Office for London to secure funds of £1.76m), are in breach of copyright, (4.0.0.7) The Defendants by their actions of
utilising in part or in whole the Claimant’s business
plans and other documents, in the
building of a similar facility as described
to them in confidence by the Claimant, are in breach of confidence, (4.0.0.8) The
Defendants by their actions and the induced actions of others under their control,
relinquished and/or disregarded or was negligent in their duty of care to the Claimant, which as a direct result,
contributed to the Claimant’s losses, (4.0.0.9) By the direct actions of the
Defendants and as a direct consequence of the breaches of the terms and conditions set out by the Defendants and as laid out above, resulted in the Claimant:- (a) suffering the total
collapse of the Claimant’s business, (b) suffering a total
loss of income and forced on rely solely on social security for his survival, (c) has become destitute
due to this loss, (4.0.1.3)
These losses have resulted in the Claimant suffering extreme
deprivation due to a total loss of all visible means of support
by way of employment and/or income, (4.0.1.4) The
Claimant being 60 years of age at the time the claim was first lodged with the
courts, has
suffered further losses due to the fact that employment opportunities for
persons of such
age range is minimal,
the Claimant has become permanently unemployed and has remained in this position since 1997
through no fault of his own and despite various and continued efforts find
employment. (5.0.0.0) THE DEFENDANTS BY REASON AND BY FACT By reason and fact that
(5.0.0.1) The
Defendants position was that of an agency, created by Government, whose
objective
included the
provision and support for persons who intended to become self-employed,
(5.0.0.2) The
Defendants had stated both publicly and in writing that they provided such
assistance
to include “Ethnic Minority” persons who intended to become Self-Employed,
(5.0.0.3) this
was Government policy and initiative,
(5.0.0.4) the
Claimant had received full encouragement from the Defendants for his intended
self- employment
project for a period from the early part of (1995 to September-1996), a period of more than twelve
months - prior to the acceptance of contract terms offered by the Defendants,
(5.0.0.5) At
all material times the Defendants had made clear
both verbally and in writing that
they would
provide the required support to the Claimant.
(5.0.0.6) The facts stated above resulted in the Claimant putting great faith in both in;
(a) the verbal and the written promises and statements of the Defendants and
(b) in the terms and
conditions of the contract offered by the Defendants.
(5.0.0.7)
The Claimant having taken all reasonable precautions to
safeguard his business was un- inclined to consider the possibility that an agency
set up by government to provide such services
as deemed necessary to support the
Claimant – would instead - have his business taken
over by the Defendants and presented as
their own creation – to the total detriment
of the Claimant, (5.0.0.8) As
direct result of the actions of the Defendants the Claimant was not able to start or
operate his business as intended under the conditions of the
contract, this resulted in failure
of the Claimant’s business venture, the Claimant
subsequently suffered total loss of his
business, damage to his person and his well being, due to fact
that he was evicted from
both from his place of business and his home:-
(5.0.0.9) Failed
to provide the level of support promised to the Claimant, which resulted in failure of
the Claimants business project,
(5.0.1.0)
Utilised
the Claimant’s business proposal, business and
marketing plans and
other
documents which had been previously handed over to the
Defendants in confidence - for their
own use, contrary to the implied terms
and conditions of confidentiality,
the law of copyright and the law
of contract.
(5.3.0.0) NEGLIGENCE
AND DUTY OF CARE (5.3.0.1) The Claimant
wishes to put before the court the suggestion that the Defendants failed to exercise
their "Duty of Care" responsibilities in their dealings
with the Claimant, based on the
nature of the relationship between the Defendants and the Claimant, (5.4.0.0) ABUSE
OF POWER (5.4.0.1) The Claimant
submit that the Defendants, namely, Dr Phil Blackburn in his position as Chief Executive of West London Training
and Enterprise Council severely abused his power,
his position and his influence, and furthermore he ignored the harm that his actions was likely to have on the Claimant,
vis-à-vis absolute ruin through a total loss of his
business and the benefits thereof. (5.4.0.2) The Claimant further submit that, the
Defendants, namely Dr Phil Blackburn in
his position as Chief Executive of West London Training and Enterprise Council willfully
and deliberately and with
malice aforethought by his actions, and
using his position deprived the
Claimant, namely Beauford Lloyd Sewell of his rightful ownership
of his business, thereby causing total financial collapse,
loss of income and extreme hardship, the Claimant being subsequently
forced to live on social security benefits for several years, due
to lack of adequate means of support. (5.4.0.3) The
Claimant further submit that the Defendants, namely Dr Phil Blackburn in his
capacity as Chief
Executive of West London Training and Enterprise Council deceived the Claimant in his
correspondence with the Claimant , vis-à-vis (the letter to B. L. Sewell, dated
publicly
funded company, and has perpetrated acts which were illegal, further he has through his
power, position and influence induced others to be a party to his illegal to;- (a) deprive the Claimant of his
rightful business and (b) secure public funds, (5.4.0.4) The Claimant submit
that the Defendants, namely Dr Phil Blackburn knowingly:- a)
acquired the
confidential information belonging to the Claimant b) illegally used
this confidential information for his own use c) illegally allowed this confidential
information to be passed to others so
that it could be used to secure ESF of £1.76m pounds sterling the
detriment of the Claimant (8.0.0.0) (8.0.0.1) falls
under the description of Special Government Department, since they
were established
by the Department of Trade and Industry expressly to perform
certain functions, Among the responsibilities were the specific
responsibilities of assisting groups
or individuals such as the Claimant - who wish to become self-employed, (8.0.0.2) The
Claimant there wishes to submit that have
a “Fiduciary Duty” in its dealing with the Claimant, (10.0.0.0) PARTICULARS OF LOSS AND DAMAGE
(10.0.0.1) Loss of business generated income for five
years 1997 – the present;- a) Financial
loss of income estimated @ £36,000 per year - £252,000 b) Consequential
loss resulting from the loss of personal income for the same period estimated
@ £30,000 per year - £210,000 (10.0.0.2) In respect of Breach
of Confidence and Breach of Trust - the Claimant is entitled under the law to interest
pursuant to s69 of the County Court Act at such rates and for such
a period as the
court considers satisfies the objective of justice. (9.0.0.3) The
Claimant claims (a)
financial compensation based on the fact that the Claimant had spent
several years beginning in (1993) developing his proposal and business plans,
prior to making contact
with the Defendants,
(9.0.0.3) The profit forecast of his business
venture had been certified as sound by his accountant with a profit forecast of
£172,000 in 1997, being the first year of operations,
(9.0.0.5)
Financial losses incurred
as a direct result of the loss of the Claimants business, these
losses
materialised as a direct result of the Claimant satisfying the conditions set
by the
Defendants in section
(9.0.0.6) Financial compensation due to loss
of income from his business from the date –
|