Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Moderator: ArthurWankspittle

User avatar
Penny Wise
First Mate
First Mate
Posts: 141
Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2017 8:54 pm
Location: Deadlights

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby Penny Wise » Mon Sep 18, 2017 1:02 pm

Could all references to Mr. Shutler’s personal details be removed, much like Wrekha's neighbour, Mr Shutler is an innocent party
Wanna balloon?

Bungle
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 415
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2015 2:26 pm

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby Bungle » Mon Sep 18, 2017 1:17 pm

beaujest wrote:
IN THE HIGH COURT CLAIM NUMBER:
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
B E T W E EN:
JASON BENNISON
Claimant
-and-
NOMINET LIMITED (A Firm) CN: 06259453
Defendant

WITNESS STATEMENT
OF JASON BENNISON
I, Jason Bennison of HEATHLANDS, WESTON GREEN, THAMES DITTON,
SURREY KT7 0JZ will say as follows :



16. The defendant dismissed my complaint on the grounds there is “no breach of
trademark”, Exhibit JB6. My complaint was nothing to do with trademarks.

17. The defendant said their policy states that if I want to appeal against their
decision, I must pay a further sum of £3600, Exhibit JB7.

18. I did not appeal because the sum demanded was so ridiculously high and
because of the prior sloppiness in how the defendant handled my complaint, I had no
confidence in them either attempting to properly consider the grounds of my
complaint, let alone understand the terms in their own policy document.

19. The defendant sought to apply a 10 day limit after which I am prevented from
bringing legal proceedings, Exhibit JB8. I understand the defendant cannot revoke
the Limitation Act 1980.

20. The defendant then put a copy of my complaint and its dismissal on the internet.
The website administrator copied it verbatim to the website bragging about my
dismissed complaint. This was how I discovered the outcome of my complaint.
Exhibit JB9.


So in effect, Mr Bennison is saying that the reason why he did not appeal the decision by Nominet was on the following basis:

One: That the sum demanded (to appeal) of £3,600 was 'so ridiculously high'

and

Two: That he had 'no confidence' that Nominet understood their own Policy Document.

In relation to Item 20 of his witness statement, he appears to complain that Nominet published a copy of their decision on the internet. In this respect, when making his complaint he really should have read Nominet's Dispute Resolution Service Policy document on its website and paid particular attention to Item 8 which states as follows:


8 Notification and publication

We will communicate a Decision to the Parties according to paragraph 17 of the Procedure and will publish all Decisions in full on our web site.

Fees are payable by the Complainant or otherwise according to paragraph 21 of the Procedure only if an acceptable resolution has not been reached by Informal Mediation and/or once we have notified the Parties that an Expert is to be appointed.

Decisions may contain the contact details of the Parties and the Parties consent to contact details being displayed in this way.

https://www.nominet.uk/wp-content/uploa ... Policy.pdf


So in effect, in order to save £3,600 (plus vat), Mr Bennison has landed himself with a cost order of £26,000
TUCO said to me:
“I envy you for the job that you do in helping advise people. If I could choose an occupation, this is what I would like to do. Much of the advice that I pass onto people is heavily influenced by your posts”.

daveBeeston
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 276
Joined: Sun May 17, 2015 8:57 am

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby daveBeeston » Mon Sep 18, 2017 1:42 pm

He may have inadvertently shot himself in the foot by claiming damages and business losses of £350,000 + especially given he states he only charges nominal fees, the two dont tally up.

I'm sure there has been some less than truthful statements made by both groups on various sites (along with potentially unfounded allegations), so it would be interesting to see what his response would be should the other party in this case take action.

This result should be a warning to all self styled internet/pub/armchair law experts that real lawyers and real courts will expose your lack of knowledge and spank yo ass for costs.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Never argue with an idiot,they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

SteveUK
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1189
Joined: Thu May 21, 2015 8:30 pm
Location: Nottingham

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby SteveUK » Mon Sep 18, 2017 2:06 pm

So bennison turns 3600 to 26k and bankruptcy.

Where does that sit on the Crawford scale?
Is it SteveUK or STEVE: of UK?????

Determinator
Gunners Mate
Gunners Mate
Posts: 40
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 11:18 am

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby Determinator » Mon Sep 18, 2017 2:17 pm

Penny Wise wrote:Could all references to Mr. Shutler’s personal details be removed, much like Wrekha's neighbour, Mr Shutler is an innocent party

Strictly speaking, yes, however, I still think he has lined his pockets by offering this privacy service, which his company then says they are at liberty to remove at any time, at their discretion, only this isn't what you see when you sign up for the service, which is an "add to basket" item when you register a domain. I note the earlier comments about the privacy service but if you have a reason to want to keep your details private, whatever it may be, then you want to make sure the protection is not removed just because someone doesn't like your website. You'd expect the details to be supplied to the relevant authorities if applicable, so you wouldn't be using it if you are running a drugs cartel or a terrorist cell, fair enough.

Determinator
Gunners Mate
Gunners Mate
Posts: 40
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 11:18 am

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby Determinator » Mon Sep 18, 2017 2:30 pm

daveBeeston wrote:He may have inadvertently shot himself in the foot by claiming damages and business losses of £350,000 + especially given he states he only charges nominal fees, the two dont tally up.

Anyone can write a figure plucked out of thin air, it means as much as a picture of Santa. The actual claim against Nominet was for £10,000, much less than the above but still unsubstantiated. He doesn't seem to understand the difference between actions in contract (where you claim liquidated damages or a specified amount) and actions in tort (where your claim would be for unliquidated damages or an unspecified amount). In contract, the amount would be money owed, a service not provided, early cancellation, etc. all of which can be easily quantified. In tort, the claimant would have to provide documentary evidence of his losses and the fact the losses were caused by the tort, which isn't always straightforward. For example, in a personal injury case, the claimant may well have received free treatment from the NHS, so his losses would be loss of earnings, including future earnings, based on his past earnings, as well as extra expenses incurred as a result of his illness or condition. It would be up to the court to assess the evidence and make an award for damages.

The claim didn't reach this stage as Mr Bennison had no cause of action against Nominet, they did not cause him any losses.
daveBeeston wrote:I'm sure there has been some less than truthful statements made by both groups on various sites (along with potentially unfounded allegations), so it would be interesting to see what his response would be should the other party in this case take action.

What other party? Nominet? What action would they take? If we followed Mr Bennison's train of thought, then they could say that, by forcing them to take down a website in this way, people will question the wisdom of registering .uk domains and they will experience a loss as a result. 123Reg could join in on the same basis!

Determinator
Gunners Mate
Gunners Mate
Posts: 40
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 11:18 am

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby Determinator » Mon Sep 18, 2017 2:39 pm

Bungle wrote:So in effect, in order to save £3,600 (plus vat), Mr Bennison has landed himself with a cost order of £26,000

Actually, it was £3,000 + VAT = £3,000. But he wasn't going to win the appeal, was he? You don't just pay Nominet £3,000 + VAT for a domain you'd like to have. The ruling would have been the same, because the domain registered wasn't piggy backing onto someone else's business, nor was is being used for phishing, etc. And if he had won, he would only have won that particular domain name. What could the owner of a site called "bailiffhelpforum" do with a domain called "bailiffhelpforumarewrongagain"?

The principle of domain hogging doesn't work in reverse. Large corporations may register most names similar to their business or brand name to stop others from using or misusing them, but nobody could register all domains that could be used to criticise them. The registrant in this case could have gone for "bailiffhelpforumareuseless", ""bailiffhelpforumsuck", "bailiffhelpforumarecrap", etc. Was Mr Bennison going to dispute each one of them? Or register all of them? In the end, it wasn't the domain that was the problem for Mr Bennison, it was the content. That's where he was, well, wrong again!

Siegfried Shrink
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 705
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 10:29 pm
Location: West Midlands, England

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby Siegfried Shrink » Mon Sep 18, 2017 3:14 pm

Having reviewed 'wrong again', 'help forum' and Mr. Bennison's business site, I'd say the 'wrong again' mob have a point, if somewhat disorderly, the 'help forum' has some very dubious advice, and the business site is a potential minefield for anyone without considerable legal expertise, as the tendency to rush to judgement by people grasping at straws seems the be the principle motivating factor for its format, existance and business model.

I did notice this snippet on a page suggesting paid Mckenzie friends.
McKenzie friends are not constrained by financial limits, hourly rates and disbursements for everything including filing fees. The job is done for a fixed fee.

They can only advocate if the court gives permission. Workarounds are available if rights of audience is denied. The methods are not suitable for publication.


I assume the workaround methods are either illegal or unethical, I cannot think of another reason why they would be unsuitable for publication. This is rather unsavoury.

TheCoz
Scalawag
Scalawag
Posts: 62
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2017 4:51 pm

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby TheCoz » Mon Sep 18, 2017 3:26 pm

He contradicts himself almost at every occasion.

He won't pay £3000 fee for dispute because its too high. He also can't pay £26k because he doesn't have the funds.

Then claims the fact a website that criticizes his has cost him £350k in the past 9 months of lost business. That means he must of had a comparison for lost business, meaning last year he must of made a similar amount in that timeframe. So are we talking about a very wealthy businessman or someone with delusional accounting skills?

User avatar
The Observer
Further Moderator
Posts: 6653
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2003 12:48 am
Location: Virgin Islands Gunsmith

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby The Observer » Mon Sep 18, 2017 3:37 pm

TheCoz wrote:So are we talking about a very wealthy businessman or someone with delusional accounting skills?


How about someone who is making it up as they go, every time they have to provide some fact or explanation as to why they are pursuing litigation? I doubt that Bennison planned very far ahead or did a lot of research before filing suit.
"I could be dead wrong on this" - Irwin Schiff

"Do you realize I may even be delusional with respect to my income tax beliefs? " - Irwin Schiff

Siegfried Shrink
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 705
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 10:29 pm
Location: West Midlands, England

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby Siegfried Shrink » Mon Sep 18, 2017 3:48 pm

I see no mention of VAT registration. I do see a fee of £35 asked, with no mention of VAT.

Therefore either the business turnover is less than the VAT registration threshold of £85,000, rendering losses of £350,000 rather dubious, to say the least

Or Mr. Bennison should be registered as a business for VAT, and should specify that prices include VAT or are VAT exclusive.

Or , his business is registered for VAT but he is a bit casual about comforming to regulations that govern the conduct of VAT registered businesses in respect of making their status clear to potential customers.

I have an appointment with some food, a higher priority than digging through the list of VAT registered businesses.

daveBeeston
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 276
Joined: Sun May 17, 2015 8:57 am

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby daveBeeston » Mon Sep 18, 2017 4:07 pm

Determinator wrote:
What other party? Nominet? What action would they take? If we followed Mr Bennison's train of thought, then they could say that, by forcing them to take down a website in this way, people will question the wisdom of registering .uk domains and they will experience a loss as a result. 123Reg could join in on the same basis!


My apologies i meant the site that was mentioned as part of the complaint not nominet and I should have made that clear.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Never argue with an idiot,they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Bungle
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 415
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2015 2:26 pm

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby Bungle » Mon Sep 18, 2017 6:06 pm

beaujest wrote:[color=#FF0000]

IN THE HIGH COURT CLAIM NUMBER:
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
B E T W E EN:
JASON BENNISON
Claimant
-and-
NOMINET LIMITED (A Firm) CN: 06259453
Defendant
WITNESS STATEMENT
OF JASON BENNISON

I, Jason Bennison of HEATHLANDS, WESTON GREEN, THAMES DITTON,
SURREY KT7 0JZ will say as follows :


2. I make this statement to support my application for an injunction requiring the
defendant to suspend the domain name www .bailiffhelpforumarewrongagain.co.uk

“the domain name” “the website” because it is in breach of the defendant’s own
published terms of business
and forbidden from allowing the domain name to be
re-registered .


What I struggle to understand is this:

The 'wrong again' website had been around since approx December 2016 and in April 2017, Nominet Ltd had rejected Mr Bennison's complaint (about it being an 'abusive registration').

Mr Bennison then let a period of almost 5 months elapse being applying 'without notice' for an injunction against Nominet Ltd.

Injunctions are to stop something happening....they are considered emergency applications. What was the emergency?

For example:

A celebrity may trot off to the High Court to seek an injunction against a newspaper because he has discovered that the newspaper is intending publishing a saucy story in the Sunday papers that may destroy that person's marriage.

A shareholder could apply for an injunction against a company to stop a share transaction/business sale going ahead etc.

A company owner could seek an injunction against an ex employer stopping that person from revealing confidential business records to a competitor?


Unless I am missing something, there was no emergency at all as far as I can see.
TUCO said to me:
“I envy you for the job that you do in helping advise people. If I could choose an occupation, this is what I would like to do. Much of the advice that I pass onto people is heavily influenced by your posts”.

ArthurWankspittle
Slavering Minister of Auto-erotic Insinuation
Posts: 2793
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 10:35 am
Location: Quatloos Immigration Control

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby ArthurWankspittle » Mon Sep 18, 2017 6:18 pm

Can we all be careful we are not going round in circles here and please keep quoting to a relevant minimum.
Going to Tibet now and deleting Facebook you have my email address

Determinator
Gunners Mate
Gunners Mate
Posts: 40
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 11:18 am

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby Determinator » Mon Sep 18, 2017 7:04 pm

The £350,000 figure was in the witness statement used to apply for the injunction, obviously for maximum effect, especially when you consider such "emergency" applications are made in a matter of minutes without great scrutiny from the court. The actual claim against Nominet was for £10,000, another nice, round figure, but just a tiny fraction of £350,000. As this spurious claim got struck out on the basis that you cannot sue one party instead of another, there was no further scrutiny nor any requirement for him to provide any evidence of this. The hearing was just the return date for the injunction.

I still think the courts should not grant these "emergency" remedies so readily. In this case, even the extravagant claims on the witness statement do not suggest any "emergency" at all. If he had already lost that much money, then it would be a case of shutting the stable door long after the horse had bolted. Being in breach of Nominet's own terms of business doesn't warrant an emergency ex parte application. What were Nominet going to do with the domain? The real reason was that, had they been allowed to be at the hearing, they would have contested the application and the domain would never have been suspended.

Bennison issued concurrent proceedings against another party, this time as an individual. This application was with notice, and the respondent was able to contest the application, so no injunction was issued. It is not clear what this other party's connection was with the case; looking at his sites, Bennison seems to believe you should take action against both the company and any directors, members of staff or subcontractors at the same time. The more the merrier! If Nominet had been afforded the same privilege, the domain wouldn't have got suspended at all.

It would appear that Mr Bennison misunderstood the purpose of INTERIM injunctions and assumed that they would last forever, or else he expected Nominet not to oppose the injunction, after all, what's one little domain and a disgruntled registrant or two? He failed to overlook the consequences this would have for the whole of the internet in the UK!

Determinator
Gunners Mate
Gunners Mate
Posts: 40
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 11:18 am

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby Determinator » Mon Sep 18, 2017 7:23 pm

Siegfried Shrink wrote:Having reviewed 'wrong again', 'help forum' and Mr. Bennison's business site, I'd say the 'wrong again' mob have a point, if somewhat disorderly,

They seem to be "Truthers", they have one of them 9/11 videos on the home page...

The Seventh String
Pirates Mate
Pirates Mate
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2017 9:48 pm

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby The Seventh String » Tue Sep 19, 2017 12:50 am

Determinator wrote:I still think the courts should not grant these "emergency" remedies so readily.


I'm a bit surprised the court seems to have issued an injunction without enquiring what exactly is so urgent about this matter that an injunction is required at all, never mind an ex parte one. Especially as the excluded party could have resolved the whole thing in short order by pointing out they aren't the body the plaintif shouild be going after.

I do wonder if part of the problem is that many legal (and political) decision makers don't seem to quite understand the most basic things about how this new fangled interwebby thingy works and hangs together, despite home internet access being available for around 25 years.

User avatar
Gregg
Conde de Quatloo
Posts: 4430
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 6:08 am
Location: Der Dachshundbünker

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby Gregg » Tue Sep 19, 2017 6:46 am

grixit wrote:
Ted Striker wrote:What would be the reaction should someone set up a site called 'Quatloos-forum-racist' or something worse?


Laughter and sarcasm.



Better to the point. "Deltaairlinessux.com" is not likely to be mistaken as the official site delta.com, but say a travel agency in the early days had bought "flydelta.com" and was booking travel on it. At one time it might have been perfectly legal and Delta could do little more than deny the bookings.

Even better, say someone who hated delta instead of deltasux.com had deltaairlines.com, and was also taking orders but not passing them on (not taking the money even) and letting people show up at the airport and not have tickets. That would be disrupting the business.

At one time, Ford did not own Ford.com, they eventually got it but in the early days our site was fordvehicles.com
Supreme Commander of The Imperial Illuminati Air Force
Your concern is duly noted, filed, folded, stamped, sealed with wax and affixed with a thumbprint in red ink, forgotten, recalled, considered, reconsidered, appealed, denied and quietly ignored.

AndyPandy
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1165
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2015 6:29 pm

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby AndyPandy » Tue Sep 19, 2017 9:57 am

Gregg wrote:Better to the point. "Deltaairlinessux.com" is not likely to be mistaken as the official site delta.com, but say a travel agency in the early days had bought "flydelta.com" and was booking travel on it. At one time it might have been perfectly legal and Delta could do little more than deny the bookings.

Even better, say someone who hated delta instead of deltasux.com had deltaairlines.com, and was also taking orders but not passing them on (not taking the money even) and letting people show up at the airport and not have tickets. That would be disrupting the business.


Exactly, an example of an abusive registration would be if someone set up barclaysbank.co.uk and made it look like the Barclays website barclays.co.uk, with the sole intention of collecting users login details to deliberately defraud them.

THAT's an abusive registration NOT Bennison's rather bizarre and somewhat costly interpretation.

Siegfried Shrink
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 705
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 10:29 pm
Location: West Midlands, England

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby Siegfried Shrink » Tue Sep 19, 2017 10:33 am

The crucial mistake (that no one with any legal experience should make) is confusing abuse of process with abuse of person.


Return to “United Kingdom”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Common Crawl [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 0 guests