The National Guild of Removers and Storers lost their defamation court claim in the High Court

Attempt as they might to re-write the laws of the land, even ngrs had to admit defeat. 

 

 

 

They had sent Pre Action Letters over a year ago, threatening fourteen removers and assocoates, for allegedly forming an action group to fight against the so called guild’s unreasonable and unwarranted monetary claims against them all. 

 

 

 

NGRS had an application being heard at the High Court in London which demanded disclosure of who was at a meeting, what was discussed at that meeting, who had agreed or authorised that an email and, or a press release be prepared and circulated etc. 

 

 

 

But the Master of the Rolls, Master Yoxall, Agreed with the removal company defendants that since ngrs had only sent out pre-action correspondence and had not in fact provided any details of their claim, there was in fact no proceedings against the defendants, and therefore the disclosure of information order was refused, and, in fact, Master Yoxall granted £3800 in costs to the group of removal companies, which has to be paid by ngrs, as they lost in being refused. 

 

 

 

The Master also went further to say that in all his long years of experience, he had never heard of such a thing, as an order being sought or granted against individuals, for which there was no proceedings ongoing. 

 

 

 

NGRS, The so called guilds barrister had the humility to even say that he also had never heard of such a thing, but that did not stop him trying to argue his point in a high court. 

 

 

 

At one point the Master, upon reading ngrs statement, commented, so they held a meeting, ‘so what’ there is nothing defamatory in that. 

 

 

 

The removals Companies Barrister described the so called guild’s application for disclosure as a mere fishing exercise. 

 

 

 

This attempt to go against all advice, and, also, to ignore the removal companys’ defence, which pointed out the folly of their attempt to make them disclose material for which there was no justification, really reeks of arrogance. I cannot speak for the other removal company defendants feelings, but I, for one, was feeling incandescent with rage, at the cheek of these upstarts, demanding to have the courts reveal our private business, in order to assist them with their unwarranted and imaginary monetary claims. 

 

 

 

I think the two words used to describe the so called Guild’s claim by Master Yoxall, says it all when he stated that the claim was ‘Manifestly Defective’. 

 

 

 

It would remind me of the words once used by ngrs solicitors CWD to describe McCrorys Removals Ltd defence as being ‘Confused, Convoluted, and Unparticularised’ I couldn’t have put it better myself, ….the only difference being that the Judge agreed with McCrorys Removals Ltd that their defence left no one in any doubt as the meaning, and intent, but that could not be said of ngrs high court claim, which clearly had No Particulars of Claim attached to it whatever. 

 

The irony was that one of the often repeated complaints of NGRS, was that the claims made by the removal companies stating that The so called Guild of Removers and storers were litigious was not correct nor true, so they took Fourteen Defendants to court to establish among other things, that they don’t take people to court! 

 

 

 

The Master did not grant the Removal Company defendants their application to strike out forthwith, the ngrs claim, on the grounds that it had no details of claim, and also that it had no reasonable grounds of success, but, the Master agreed to put a limit of 14 days for ngrs to lodge their detailed claim, otherwise it will be struck out. 

 

 

 

And since the 14 days have now long ago elapsed, the defamation claim has in fact expired and the order showing this result is attached to this blog. 

 

 

 

It can only mean that, either NGRS so called Guild of removers and storers were poorly advised by their Coyne White Devine, CWD, legal team, or else they were properly advised not to proceed but continued regardless of that advice. Either way it was a costly foray, and, if they continue on this path they will certainly soon be Courting Disaster. 

 

defamation judgment