Monday, August 13, 2012

Borders Solicitor who wife claimed ‘may contemplate suicide’, sued a grandparent for £150K over leaflet criticism in divorce case, gets only £15K

Borders solicitor Ronald Hastings 'may have contemplated suicide' over leaflet allegations of lying in court, sued the grandparent author instead. RONALD ANDREW HASTINGS (aged 53), a solicitor who runs Hastings & Co, The Square, Kelso, a law firm & estate agents based in the Scottish Borders is reported to have been awarded FIFTEEN THOUSAND POUNDS after he sued a grandparent for ONE HUNDRED & FIFTY THOUSAND POUNDS over claims he lied to a court in connection with reports the solicitor compiled in a divorce case. Court of Session judge Lord Mathews who heard the case, found claims made by the grandparent in the leaflet naming Mr Hastings in connection with allegations relating to the divorce case, to be ‘vitriolic’.

However, Lord Mathews REFUSED to take into account evidence provided by the solicitor’s wife that she feared her husband was contemplating suicide over the incident, saying “that was not something which was referred to by the pursuer at all far less as being something which was attributable to the statements made about himas no similar claims had been made by Mr Hastings to the court.”

The Herald newspaper reported on the case : “The dispute between Mr Hastings and the man – who cannot be named for legal reasons –began when the solicitor was instructed to compile a report in a divorce case at Jedburgh Sheriff Court. It involved him (Mr Hastings) reporting on the circumstances of the grandchildren of the man involved. The grandfather was unhappy with the report as it contained certain claims against him and his contact with the children, which were later found to be inaccurate. He then began posting leaflets to homes and businesses in Kelso, rubbishing Mr Hastings's name.”

The Court of Session was told Mr Hastings was a solicitor in the Borders. By interlocutor dated 30 January 2004 pronounced at Jedburgh Sheriff Court he was appointed to investigate and report on the welfare and circumstances of the children of the parties to a divorce action. The defender in that action was the current defender's son, the children therefore being his grandchildren. Having made certain investigations and interviewed the defender on 24 February 2004, the pursuer submitted his report to the court on 4 March 2004. It is now accepted that the report contained certain inaccuracies. Broadly speaking, the pursuer contends that these were innocent mistakes, while the defender's position is that these were malicious lies.

Speaking in support of her husband, Mrs Hastings told the court in evidence : “She worried about his state of mental health and was concerned in case he would contemplate suicide. On one occasion they had had an argument and he started putting things into an overnight bag. She thought that he was going to drive off but she hid the car keys and his mobile so that he could not go away.”

However, Lord Mathews said he would not take Mrs Hastings claims of worries her husband would commit suicide into account as there was no attribution to this by Mr Hastings in his own testimony to the court.

Lord Mathews said : “I have no doubt that all of this has had an effect on the defender but it is the effect on the pursuer which I have to consider. In doing so I have to have regard to a number of factors. The pursuer's own evidence was that he had been distracted from getting on with his job, had missed some days at work, at least in part, due to the stress of this and there had been some family worries.”

“His wife went further, indicating that he had lost his motivation quite a lot, had put on weight, had stopped exercising and at least to some extent was no longer motivated to go into work. He wondered what the point was of doing a good job if someone could demolish his reputation. He was very down hearted and the whole matter had put strains on their marriage. She did refer to concerns that he might commit suicide but that was not something which was referred to by the pursuer at all far less as being something which was attributable to the statements made about him.”

“I have no reason to doubt the evidence of the pursuer's wife but in the absence of any attribution by him of suicidal thoughts to the defamation, I do not take them into account. It seems to me also that the effect of the court action is probably marginal. As I assess his evidence the pursuer understood that solicitors were used to criticisms and his main concern was to put the matter to bed by way of a permanent interdict.”

Lord Mathews commented on the size of Mr Hastings £150K claim for damages, saying : “I do not consider, on the evidence before me, that the damages should be as great as they were in for example Munro v Brown, and I assess solatium at £15,000. Most of the damage has already been done and I order that interest at the rate of eight per cent per annum should run on £10,000 of that award from 10 April 2011 when the material was first published. Finally, I should say that there was an issue as to whether the offending material should have been placed in the report at all. It seems to me that in light of the contents of number 6/7 of process, the letter dated 4 February 2004 from Mr McNab, it was a matter which the pursuer was duty bound to investigate. Had he ignored it and had the matter come to light at a later stage, he would have been open to criticism. Even if there was no such duty and the inclusion of the material was a matter for the pursuer's discretion, I cannot hold that the manner in which he exercised that discretion was unreasonable or unwarranted.”

Lord Mathews decision stated : “I shall sustain the first, third and in part the fourth pleas in law for the pursuer, repel the first and in part the second pleas in law for the defender and I shall grant decree for interdict in terms of the first conclusion and for payment by the defender to the pursuer of the sum of £15,000 sterling with interest on £10,000 thereof at the rate of eight per centum per annum from 10 April 2011 until payment. The case will be put out By Order on the question of expenses.”

The full opinion of Lord Mathews in the case can be read online here : OUTER HOUSE, COURT OF SESSION [2012] CSOH 126 A189/11 OPINION OF LORD MATTHEWS in the cause R A H Pursuer; against M H Defender or on the Scottish Court Service website HERE

Questions have since been raised as to why the solicitor’s initials were only published in the Court’s decision, rather than his full name. The solicitor’s firm of Hastings & Co, The Square Kelso, was also omitted from the Court’s published decision, with the firm’s initials only appearing as H & Co in Kelso.

No explanation for the apparent attempt at removing key information on the solicitor’s identity and his practice in Kelso from the public domain has been offered at this time by the Scottish Court Service.

The Herald Newspaper, who identified the solicitor as Ronald Hastings of Kelso, and publish his picture, reports :

Lawyer awarded damages after 'liar' smear campaign

Victoria Weldon Reporter

A SOLICITOR has been awarded £15,000 in damages after being subjected to a smear campaign that falsely claimed he was a malicious liar.

Ronald Hastings, 53, was awarded the sum, plus expenses, after a man involved in one of his cases handed out about 100 fliers in the town where he worked, claiming he knowingly supplied false information to the court.

The lawyer, who runs his own estate agents and law firm, Hastings & Co, in Kelso in the Scottish Borders, told the Court of Session in Edinburgh that the claims damaged his reputation and forced him to take time off work due to stress.

He also claimed he became demotivated and developed family problems.

Court documents submitted on behalf of Mr Hastings said: "The Pursuer has suffered injury to his feelings, standing and professional reputation as a result of the distribution by the defender of the false and defamatory statements.

"The statements caused and continue to cause distress. The pursuer's estate agency business is well know in the Scottish Borders. The Pursuer's name is that of the business. His reputation is important to the business."

The dispute between Mr Hastings and the man – who cannot be named for legal reasons –began when the solicitor was instructed to compile a report in a divorce case at Jedburgh Sheriff Court.

It involved him reporting on the circumstances of the grandchildren of the man involved.

The grandfather was unhappy with the report as it contained certain claims against him and his contact with the children, which were later found to be inaccurate.

He then began posting leaflets to homes and businesses in Kelso, rubbishing Mr Hastings's name.

The fliers stated: "WARNING! Ron Hastings, solicitor and estate agent, IS A LIAR. When acting as a court reporter, he knowingly supplied false, and in my opinion MALICIOUS information to a Sherriff's [sic] Court Report, that was put into the public domain.

"Under Scottish Law, this is a very serious offence, yet the Legal System has done NOTHING about it. WHY?

"IS THIS SCOTTISH JUSTICE? SHAME ON YOU Mr Hastings!

"WHAT PART OF THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?"

The defender restated his case in court, claiming that the solicitor had deliberately included false information about him in the report.

However, Judge Lord Matthews accepted that it was an "innocent error", which was later flagged up to the court, and awarded in favour of Mr Hastings.

In a written judgment on the case, Lord Matthews said: "I am unable to find it proved that the pursuer told a deliberate lie.

"In the first place there is simply no reason for him to have done so. He had, on the evidence which I accept, never met the defender before."

The judge added: "The sting in the handbills is that the pursuer maliciously lied to the court in the course of carrying out his duty as a court reporter. The defender has failed to prove that is true and accordingly I find for the pursuer."

Mr Hastings asked the court to award £150,000 in damages, but Lord Matthews deemed that he was only entitled to £15,000.

The judge also granted a perpetual court order banning the grandfather from making any further claims against Mr Hastings.

He said: "The contents of the handbill are, in my opinion, vitriolic. It seems to me to be quite probable that if the defender is not prevented from doing so, he will continue to wage a campaign of sorts against the pursuer and accordingly I am prepared to pronounce a perpetual interdict."

Mr Hastings did not respond to calls from The Herald.

20 comments:

Anonymous said...

The judge added: "The sting in the handbills is that the pursuer maliciously lied to the court in the course of carrying out his duty as a court reporter. The defender has failed to prove that is true and accordingly I find for the pursuer."

Mr Hastings asked the court to award £150,000 in damages, but Lord Matthews deemed that he was only entitled to £15,000.

The judge also granted a perpetual court order banning the grandfather from making any further claims against Mr Hastings.
================================
This could bee seen as another case where court sides with lawyer. It may also be an attempt to deter the public from poster campaigns.

Anonymous said...

Poster campaigns, what if everyone did that? That tipping point.

The courts would be chokka and all of the cases could not go the lawyers way for obvious reasons.

Now that would be interesting, and lawyers should not complain as they are short of work.

Anonymous said...

I cannot see any judge not siding with a lawyer in circumstances such as this.

Anonymous said...

The grave danger in the Judgement is that the public perception may be that a Judge will always side with a lawyer no matter what the evidence states.

The public may form the opinion that the lawyer was up to no good [even when he was doing nothing wrong] because the Judge is after all a lawyer. So even though the Judgement has gone in the lawyers favour it may have the same effect as if the lawyer was found guilty.

Providing people are telling the truth poster campaigns are justified, especially with the reputation for cover ups the judiciary have.

Anonymous said...

If people scatter leaflets instead of handing them out how can the Judge blame the defender for breaking the interdict?

Anonymous said...

Well Judge Lord Matthews I hope the lawyer does not have any unhappy clients out there. Would you find against them all.

But let us be fair, if your judgement is honest in this case then it is unfair the lawyer should have been named on leaflets.

What the profession seem incapable of understanding is that by their loyalties to each other they are exacerbating the problem. How can anyone trust a lawyer when all they do is close ranks. This lawyer has used the courts to persue the grandfather. But if the grandfather wanted a lawyer to sue a lawyer he would never get one. No balance means no trust.

To be honest I do not trust this judgement because I know how loyal lawyers are to lawyers.

Anonymous said...

Hope the £15K damages award is appealed as its a total disgrace

Anonymous said...

Note the solicitor has legal representation and the grandparent none.

Mr MH should appeal Lord Mathews ruling because handing over £15,000 to a lawyer with loan shark interest rates from the courts is just not on in this day & age.

Anonymous said...

They are shutting down web sites criticizing lawyers.

Better all go for the leaflets then.

Anonymous said...

Yes a disgrace and yes it does seem that the essence of the truth is conveniently swept aside?

The material question of fact has been glossed over in order to arrive at the desired outcome?

The grandfather was discriminated against by admitted untruths, which clearly caused him damage and distress?

These untruths by the Scottish lawyer are admitted but the 'excuse' was given that the untruths were not deliberate?

There is no evidence that the Scottish lawyer's untruths were not deliberate other than his word?

We all know that Scottish lawyers are professional liers and their 'word' accordingly should not be relied upon especially in a court of law where the risks are high?

It remains that the damaged party was and still is the grandfather because of the Scottish lawyers deliberate or otherwise negligent Report against him?

Therefore, the only safe decision must be in favour of the grandfather as he was entitled to act to warn others in the community that this lawyer is willing to act against him in either a deliberate or negligent manner and that such behaviour has led to the distribution of flyers telling what is admitted to be the truth?

Where is the logic of this decision?

How are the Public protected or represented by this decision?

It is offensive to think that a Scottish lawyers fat salary should be considered before the life, reputation and to the damage of the Scottish lawyers victim (the grandfather)?

The sooner this decision is overturned the better for Society as this decision is against the Public Interest?

This is not the Scotland that we deserve?

Anonymous said...

not all in the profession seem to agree with Hasting's legal action -

http://www.burness.co.uk/blog/2012/08/defamation-action-not-always-right-course-action

Defamation Action Is "Not Always The Right Course Of Action"
Fiona McAllister

Lord Matthews’ decision in the case of R.H v M.H caught my eye when it was published on Wednesday last week. The case involved a solicitor pursuing a claim as a result of the distribution of false and defamatory material. The material alleged that he lied to a court in the course of carrying out his duty as a reporter in a child welfare case. The case ultimately resulted in the solicitor receiving £15,000 damages for injury to his feelings, standing and professional reputation.

It is unusual to see a solicitor pursuing a defamation case. The last time I read about solicitors pursuing defamation cases was in 2010/2011 when various actions were raised against the publisher of the website ‘Solicitors from Hell.’ Rick Kordowski set up the website, which named and shamed solicitors who allegedly provided a substandard service. Kordowski has had to pay £150,000 in fines for various libel actions (the actions were all English), which were based on malicious and baseless allegations of solicitors providing a shoddy service. The website was finally shut down but as Scottish Legal News reported on 7 August 2012, solicitors in England and Wales accused of inadequate service are to be publicly identified on a new website handled by the Legal Ombudsman.

The facts of this case were entirely different to the Kordowski cases. The defender was concerned that the report produced by the pursuer stated that he harmed his grandchild and he wanted an acknowledgement that some phrases within the report were untrue. He sought an apology and a retraction. Failure to achieve this resolution prompted him to distribute leaflets stating that the solicitor "knowingly supplied false and malicious information to a sheriff's court report that was put into the public domain".

In fact, the report stated that there had been a complaint that the defender had acted inappropriately towards the child, that the Social Work Department had investigated it and no further action was taken. The pursuer based his report on the information he had been given. Further, the report was not intended for public consumption - it was a report addressed to the sheriff and the parties. Undoubtedly, had the pursuer ignored the complaint and it had come to light at a later stage, he would have been open to criticism.

It’s remarkable to step back and look at the length of time that has passed since the report was published. The solicitor was appointed to investigate and report on the welfare and circumstances of the children in January 2004. Correspondence passed between solicitors following the lodging of the pursuer’s report in 2004. After that the pursuer heard nothing about the matter until 10 April 2011 when he became aware of the leaflets being distributed. The pursuer took advice and interim interdict was granted on 14 April 2011. The final judgment was then published on 1 August 2012 when perpetual interdict was granted and damages awarded.

Anonymous said...

Part 2
http://www.burness.co.uk/blog/2012/08/defamation-action-not-always-right-course-action

Defamation Action Is "Not Always The Right Course Of Action"
Fiona McAllister


There is no doubt that both the pursuer and the defender would have invested a huge amount of time, effort and commitment at a personal level. It would have been emotionally draining for both parties.

Ultimately I agree with Lord Matthews where he said, “While one might feel sympathy for the defender, the contents of the report did not constitute a licence for him to lash out at the pursuer. It did not mean that he was any less hurt by what the defender did and did not make the defender’s attack on him any less targeted, hurtful and damaging.”

A reputation takes years to build up and seconds to damage. That doesn’t always mean raising a court action is the right course of action. A defamation action is a very adversarial position to take and with the profile and media attention that comes with it no one wants to lose. There is a danger that by not taking public action one could be perceived as somehow tacitly accepting the statement but it’s a case of deciding whether it is a battle worth fighting.

Fiona McAllister
Senior Solicitor

Anonymous said...

A defamation action is a very adversarial position to take and with the profile and media attention that comes with it no one wants to lose. There is a danger that by not taking public action one could be perceived as somehow tacitly accepting the statement but it’s a case of deciding whether it is a battle worth fighting.
---------------------------
Yes I agree but I also agree that leaflets are a legitimate way to expose lawyers. Christ the Citizens Advice Bureau is the Law Societies to, what are ruined clients meant to do.

I have tried leaflets and they work. So you lawyers out there who have spent years building reputations remember leaflets work, treat your clients as you would want to be treated.

Using leaflets is also a desperate measure because people who do it have been repudiated by all the so called complaints channels. It is justified and right.

Anonymous said...

Defamation Action Is "Not Always The Right Course Of Action"
Fiona McAllister


Yes I agree but also for another reason. A client could never take legal action against a lawyer who defamed him, but the lawyer can take legal action against the client.

Hardly a balanced system.

Anonymous said...

Defamation Action Is "Not Always The Right Course Of Action"

True the public may think the grandfather had no chance because Lord Mathews and the persuer are both lawyers.

Anonymous said...

Investigated and evidence, two of the most dubious words in the English language.

The so called evidence is a product of who is doing the investigating. Well proves one thing the leaflets had an effect and due to the fact Judge and Lawyer and both lawyers the persuer should have been awarded £0.00.

As for the lawyer wife's claim the lawyer meant to have considered suicide. Does he give a jot about the Law Society causing client suicides?

Lawyers are all the same, trust none of them.

Anonymous said...

"A reputation takes years to build up and seconds to damage".

By most lawyers conduct you would think reputations took seconds to build and years to damage the way Scottish Lawyers treat the public. I am correct Fiona.

Your comment above is good, my leaflets will do their job then. I have learned the hard way Fiona that reporting lawyers to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission or Law Society is a waste of time. I am not having a go at you or this lawyer, but I know leaflets are the only way forward against a profession that control every bureaucracy in this country.

Hamilton CAB and CAB's throughout Scotland are the latest allies in the the Law Society of Scotland's network of evil. Lawyers have a great disadvantage, clients who have no money to pay damages are the most powerful because the courts can do nothing to them for handing out leaflets. This is the way forward, a way the judiciary cannot control, the way they wrongly closed Solicitors from Hell.

Leaflets are much more productive and will destroy the reputations of lawyers their bureaucracies have been protecting for years.

When a lawyer knows a client may use leaflets against him rather than go to his union, that lawyer will treat that client with respect.

Get your printers going folks and expose the criminals their Law Society protects. Cut the lawyers out of the complaints loop and mighty forced will come to your aid.

Anonymous said...

This is yet another example where the humiliation of a Party Litigant is carried out to PUNISH them for having the temerity to think that Scotland has a fair Justice System and for believing that in Scotland it should be possible to tell your own community the truth about a crooked lawyer in their midst?

It is crystal clear that Hasting's 'opinion' on the grandfather had the right to be kept secret from the grandfather?

Therefore since it was supposed to be a secret then the discovery of the truth by the grandfather has to be seen as being 'unfortunate' and 'not relevant'?

It was confirmed that the grandfather had been damaged by false information against him?

However, what proof did Hastings provide as to the damage that these leaflet's caused his ability to charge ridiculous fees?

The whole thing is a joke and an abuse of power?

This was a pernicious action taken by a spiteful Scottish lawyer and if there is any Justice left in Scotland, this horrible court CASH-GRAB against a pensioner should REBOUND on Hastings so that he becomes so notorious for what he has done that the result is that the community BLACK-BALL him?

Then he will have plenty of time to reflect on whether or not he possesses a conscience afteral?

Anonymous said...

In a written judgment on the case, Lord Matthews said: "I am unable to find it proved that the pursuer told a deliberate lie.

Well Matthews you are both lawyers. But leaflets work and get round the secrecy of self regulation. Many of these lawyers have no idea of the damage they do to people, and leaflets are the only solution to tyranny by bureaucracy.

I wonder if ten people in the borders did the same if the lawyer in question awarded damages.

Anonymous said...

I think anyone who has a problem with any lawyer should print and distribute their own leaflets.

With the culture of cover up we have no choice.