Cyclist threatened with legal action over near miss posting.
- Thread starter simongt
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Roadrat77
Well-Known Member
- Location
- Birmingham
It's standard procedure - it's called a counterclaim and basically meant to discourage the prospective claimant.
A counterclaim has to have substance. This is more akin to a SLAPP action (strategic lawsuit against public participation), although those are usually issued by people with deep pockets in an attempt to make the actual claimant go away and keep quiet.
Slick
Guru
To be fair, it can work a treat in some instances.
Dogtrousers
Kilometre nibbler
This has just reached a conclusion. They pressed on with legal action against the Youtube barrister bloke. They did not succeed.
Quite a detailed video here.
View: https://youtu.be/zWueA8na5Qo?si=cNtKj-nmuLVZ0x4L
Quite a detailed video here.
View: https://youtu.be/zWueA8na5Qo?si=cNtKj-nmuLVZ0x4L
Good. I said it was a SLAPP. Video confirms it.
dicko
Guru
- Location
- Derbyshire
On the subject of van drivers, for the second time this year an NHS van has rolled down the hill, at the bottom of our road, and hit the curb and stopped. This time it narrowly missed a car and has demolished a road sign. The council are setting about replacing the damage sign which ripped up the pavement like a lever. The driver doesn’t seem to apply his handbrake or forgotten to.
wiggydiggy
Legendary Member
Dogtrousers
Kilometre nibbler
Bristolian
Über Member
- Location
- Bristol, UK
Dogtrousers
Kilometre nibbler
@wiggydiggy it went something like this...
They brought a case against him and also against the the cyclist who posted the initial video.
The case was without legal merit and had errors.
They also - indirectly - accused him of inciting xenophobia which pissed him off.
While the case was running he took down the videos in question.
They offered him money to keep the videos off YouTube. His view is that this was their sole motivation.
His view is that the case was an attempt at legal bullying to shut him up (a SLAPP)
Case was thrown out, videos are back on line.
His view is that the lawyers who prepared the (no legal merit, bullying) case acted outside their professional guidelines.
Caveat: from memory, probably full of errors.
They brought a case against him and also against the the cyclist who posted the initial video.
The case was without legal merit and had errors.
They also - indirectly - accused him of inciting xenophobia which pissed him off.
While the case was running he took down the videos in question.
They offered him money to keep the videos off YouTube. His view is that this was their sole motivation.
His view is that the case was an attempt at legal bullying to shut him up (a SLAPP)
Case was thrown out, videos are back on line.
His view is that the lawyers who prepared the (no legal merit, bullying) case acted outside their professional guidelines.
Caveat: from memory, probably full of errors.
No errors as far as I can see. This was a SLAPP action by a monumental peanut who didn't like being reported for doing a close pass. His very tenuous idea is that because it was a company van, there was somehow a breach of trademark because the cyclist and the barrister has posted the footage online. They were told multiple times to go away, but kept on until it reached court until (I imagine) a very annoyed Judge threw the case out and castigated his legal team.
Private Eye has been running a campaign to get SLAPP actions banned as they are effectively bullying, just using wealth to try and intimidate people who don't have large sums of money to fight the action.
I hope the same Judge gets to review the legal costs if they aren't agreed.
oxoman
Well-Known Member
Having watched said videos and having some knowledge of the legal system, ( OH works in this sector), it could or should in some cases be quite worrying for some social media keyboard warriers. Most companies would have played it down and chastised the driver, certainly my experience so far. Unfortunately it looks like the company and legal company involved have egg on their face and a hefty bill to settle, the driver has a driving conviction. All of these are self inflicted. And yes I agree the YT lawyer does go on a bit.
The company, Cornices Centre has a sole director Alfons Sledziewski and 3 employees, one of which is likely to be the director.He appears to have mre money than sense. As of Feb 2024 the company had £321,000 owed to creditors and was in debt to £151,490 all due to be repaid within one year. It does have £284k in the bank though.
I'm betting is was Alfons who was driving the van.
wiggydiggy
Legendary Member
I could but I'm on limited data / signal options at the moment so it'd still look like stop motion animationYou could play it on double speed
CheersHe does go on a bit; synopsis - he won / they lost
Cheers for the summary. I'll probably watch it when signal is good again, and yes at double speed lol.
Ps Just googled SLAPPs and they sound like a right pain for those I'll equipped or financed to deal with one brought against them.
