Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 13:47

From: Robert Stevens

Subject: Interference with property

I understand your objections Steve, but they seem to me to be criticisms of the reasoning of the CA in Welton. If we really accepted what you say, Welton is wrongly decided. Still no claim in Club Cruise and that decision is still right.

Rob

-----Original Message-----
From: Hedley, Steve   
Sent: 19 November 2008 13:27
Subject: RE: interference with property

Not sure I find this convincing - it's a bit of a euphemism to describe the threats made in Welton as "advice", and no doubt the claimants went along with it not out of any respect for the threatener's legal knowledge, but because it seemed the best way of not ending up before the courts. In what sense was he "gratuitously undertaking" anything? – unless you want to say that anyone who does anything is "gratuitously undertaking" that they have a right to do it?

<<<< Previous Message  ~  Index  ~  Next Message >>>>>