Case No. IP-2015-000090

15.Before me Mr Perry made no bones about his intention to make several claims and applications in the future. Mr Austen, who appeared for Brundle and Betafence, referred me to a letter dated 24 August 2016 from Mr Perry to Rose J, one of many lengthy letters sent by Mr Perry to members of the judiciary or Collyer Bristow both before and after the grant of the ECRO. Mr Perry said this under the heading ‘Relief sought’, meaning relief he intends to seek in the future:“1. Pecuniary damages for the fraud itself in excess of £1m (one million pounds). Please note: the turnover on sales of the product seems to reach an amount in excess of £1.5m based on current evidence. Without having had any access to accounting records this is an estimation based on volume where figures provided by the Indian Manufacturer and as found in Michael Brundle’s own witness statement in CC13P00980. The Courts job is to remove all gain (turnover and increased trading goodwill and business expansion) from the defendants, deter further offences and impose punishment, hence in point 2 below:2.Aggravated damages for the consequences of the fraud on the claimant, in excess of £5m (five million pounds but not more than £30m (thirty million pounds)).3.Damages for sales of the product outside of the United Kingdom but which were masterminded by Betafence in the UK, in excess of £1m (one million pounds).4.Order for any existing offending products to be destroyed or handed over to the claimant.5.Injunction to prevent any further sales of the product.6.Order (if possible) to extend the life of the claimants granted patents by five years.7.8.Director’s Disqualification Order for all individuals involved in the fraud to prevent these individuals from managing or having involvement in the directing of corporations, under rules of offences by company officers.9.Revoking of any relevant practice licences or ban whether temporary or permanent of individuals involved in fraud.10.Recommendation to Solicitors Regulation Authority and/or Police for any further investigation as the Court sees appropriate.11.Serious Crime Prevention Order.12.Rescission/annulment of Bankruptcy Order.13.Order to freeze the assets of the defendants as I don’t believe they have the means to pay the damages and refuse to provide any financial proof that they can – so basically they’ve paid themselves the big Christmas bonuses and spent the money made through the fraud and then claim they can’t afford to pay me.14.Contempt of Court order for Collyer Bristow LLP.15.Contempt of Court order for Stuart Baran and Patrick Wheeler and revocation of practice licences.16.Costs and interest.”16.The letter goes on to develop an allegation of abuse of dominant position on the part of the three defendants, which Mr Perry also wishes to pursue. He added this:“Collyer Bristow LLP are not yet party to proceedings and I would like to add them to the claim for:1.Dishonest assistance,2.Fraud by abuse of position;3.Failing to disclose information.4.Intent to conceal fraud.5.Masterminding civil proceedings against an individual to conceal criminal activity carried out by corporations (their clients).Official Receiver should be added to proceedings for:1.Dishonest assistance whilst acting as a trustee.2.Perverting the course of justice.3.Interfering with the administration of justice.4.Fraudulent breach of trust when acting as a trustee.5.Conspiring to defraud or allow the continuation of a fraud when acting as a trustee.”17.At the hearing Mr Perry explained to me the ‘fraud’ allegation. If I understood correctly, this forms the basis of claims 1-5, 8-10 and 13-16 in the first quotation from his letter and all the claims against Collyer Bristow. The short point, as explained by Mr Perry, is that my judgment in the First Action was reached on the basis of fraudulent evidence assembled by the officers of the three defendants, the solicitors at Collyer Bristow and counsel who acted for the defendants at the first action. I was shown an email dated 17 November 2016 to Patrick Wheeler of Collyer Bristow seeking the home addresses of these individuals and of officers of the Official Receiver, for use in what Mr Perry called his ‘appeal’ relating to the conspiracy. In fact, by this he seems to have meant a fresh claim for fraud and conspiracy, since there has been no such claim made so far. Very properly, the addresses were not provided.18.I should add that on the evidence I have seen, I have no reason to suppose that there has been any misconduct by anyone.19.Mr Perry also told me that one option he may take is to pursue his claim for fraud with the police for the time being. He said that when they turn up evidence, which he hopes will happen, he will then continue with his civil action for fraud.20.Aside from fraud, there are two other claims, or categories of claim, which Mr Perry drew my attention to at the hearing and which he wishes to make. These were an annulment of the order of bankruptcy made against him and a separate claim for passing off based on misuse of his name.21.So far as the bankruptcy order against Mr Perry is concerned, it emerged during the hearing that this has probably been discharged. Mr Perry said that on 30 April 2016, during a phone conversation with the Official Receiver, he was told that the order had been discharged either on that day or shortly before. However, Mr Perry also told me that he had never seen a written order to that effect. In any case, he wished to pursue the application to rescind the order for bankruptcy, made by Deputy District Judge Giddins in the Bath County Court on 30 April 2015, because Mr Perry wanted to clear his name and improve his credit rating.