Kreamer says injunction is "an abuse". She mentions the different roles performed by Chis Farnell, who was the sole owner of Lex Dominus until June 5 or 6 when Elliott became the new director and shareholder.
Kreamer questions how CF could have kept confidentiality rules when he has been Panorama's solicitor, ESI solicitor + director + LD solicitor who issued these proceedings.
Application itself issued by IPS Law, Farnell’s firm. New solicitors since instructed. Court should consider this matter as relevant. Farnell had benefit of various pieces of information that may have been obtained under duty of confidentiality, Kreamer says.
She pointed out all the companies Farnell was representing in the same agreement, and how the QC conveniently left this information out of his argument, and also how IPS Law submitted this case but quietly changed solicitors when the conflict was pointed out
Application itself issued by IPS Law, Farnell’s firm. New solicitors since instructed. Court should consider this matter as relevant. Farnell had benefit of various pieces of information that may have been obtained under duty of confidentiality, Kreamer says.
If Lauren pulls this off, Mrs Otto better get used to me calling her Name out when we are having our monthly bunk up. The good news is Mrs Otto is called Lauren as well - so I can’t go wrong.
Panorama argues that while the July court case had different parties, the same “cast of characters” is involved. Court held then that shares were still owned by Panorama. Judge was same.
If Lauren pulls this off, Mrs Otto better get used to me calling her Name out when we are having our monthly bunk up. The good news is Mrs Otto is called Lauren as well - so I can’t go wrong.
Comments
Kreamer questions how CF could have kept confidentiality rules when he has been Panorama's solicitor, ESI solicitor + director + LD solicitor who issued these proceedings.
This is an excellent point
This has not been argued by Elliott since that date of time (July) or subsequently, until now.