Jump to content


BankFodder

Dealing with Bailiffs - JASON BENNISON -and- NOMINET LIMITED (A FIRM) - order of the High Court

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 631 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ouch Happy Contrails will not be happy at all.


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some context

 

More

CASE Digest: Mr Jason Bennison v Nominet Ltd. High Court of Justice, Queens Bench Division: 7th September 2017.

 

Earlier this year, Mr Bennison spotted a website where a number of people had been responding to posts made on one of his websites. He decided to complain to Nominet about the domain, arguing that it was an ‘abusive registration’. He paid for a summary decision under Nominet’s Dispute Resolution Service (DRS), and the adjudicator ruled against him. The judgment was published on the Bailii website: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/DRS/2017/D00018586.pdf.

 

Mr Bennison could have appealed this decision within 10 days, at a cost of £3,000 + VAT. Rather than doing this, he waited nearly 6 months before deciding to go directly to the High Court to apply for an interim ex parte injunction against Nominet, to suspend the domain in question.

 

The court ordered Mr Bennison to issue a claim against Nominet, as an ex parte injunction is only an interim remedy. He issued a claim for £10,000, arguing that, since Nominet were allowing the domain owner(s) to conceal their identity behind a privacy service, he was unable to sue them, and was therefore suing Nominet instead.

 

Upon receipt of the order, Nominet suspended the website domain until the return date of 7th September, by which time they had tried several times, to explain to Mr Bennison that he was taking action against the wrong party, and why.

 

At the hearing, the Judge noted that there had been no emergency, nothing that warranted an ex parte application. Nominet informed the court that, had they been able to attend the application hearing, they would have been able to knock it on the head very easily there and then. However, they were prevented from doing so as Mr Bennison had refused to provide them with the details of the date and room number for the application hearing.

 

The Judge struck out Mr Bennison’s claim, saying you cannot sue one party instead of another one. Mr Bennison kept arguing that Nominet were in breach of their own terms of service, both by denying that the domain was an ‘abusive registration’ and by allowing registrants to use third party privacy services.

 

Jason Bennison clearly misunderstood the meaning of “abusive registration” when he claimed a domain by the name of bailiffhelpforumarewrongagain.co.uk was “disrupting his business”. As can be seen in the summary decision, the modifier “wrongagain” left the public in no doubt as to the purpose of the site.

 

In fact, the website name was actually inspired by a thread that Mr Bennison ran on his own website which he called “Consumer Action Group Wrong Again”. That thread ran for nearly 3 years with thousands of posts and despite its name, it was mostly dedicated to posting personal abuse against a number of individuals who regularly posted on the CAG forum, as well as to publish personal details about them, their homes, their families, businesses, etc. The Bailiff Help Forum are Wrong Again website had been set up to respond to that relentless, daily abuse, as well as to correct a significant amount of inaccurate information about bailiff enforcement.

 

The domain was registered using a privacy service run by 123Reg, where the registrant’s details appear as “Identity Protect Limited”. These are the same details that Nominet could see as. They themselves, could not access personal data of any of Identity Protect Limited’s clients, because it is a third party company not owned, nor related to, Nominet.

 

They had also informed Mr Bennison of the correct procedure to obtain disclosure of these details for the purpose of issuing proceedings (namely via a Norwich Pharmacal Order). Furthermore, Nominet had given Mr Bennison the opportunity to withdraw his injunction application and discontinue his claim before the hearing, at no cost to him. Nominet Ltd informed him that the ex parte injunction was neither proportional, nor useful, because all they could do was to sever the link between the domain name and its IP address, without affecting the actual website content. The content could simply be republished under another domain and it was also noted that a new domain had been registered following the suspension of the disputed domain.

 

The judge dismissed the interim injunction and awarded costs in Nominet’s favour, to the tune of £26,000.

D00018586.pdf


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will he now try a Norwich Pharmacal order against 123Reg and / or Identity Protect Ltd?.

 

Or was that never really the purpose of the litigation and he wanted to make Nominet make the 'wrong again' website unaccessible?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not sure whether i find this funny or sad. The internet becomes weirder by the day.

 

I always thought that Jason said he had nothing to do with Bailiffhelpforum and it was registered/run by someone else. If this is so, why was he the claimant in this case ? Perhaps i have misunderstood.


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah... He is;

 

DOMAIN INFORMATION

Domain:BHF (Cag Edits)

 

Registrar:Fasthosts Internet Ltd [Tag = LIVEDOMAINS]

 

Registration Date:2012-07-20

Expiration Date:2022-07-20

Updated Date:2017-06-20

 

Status:Registered until expiry date.

 

Name Servers:

ns1.ipage.com

ns2.ipage.com

 

REGISTRANT CONTACT

Name:Jason Bennison

Address:The registrant is a non-trading individual who has opted to have their

address omitted from the WHOIS service.

 

This last part made ROFDWL - Nominet...

 

This WHOIS information is provided for free by Nominet UK the central registry

for .uk domain names. This information and the .uk WHOIS are:

 

Copyright Nominet UK 1996 - 2017.

 

You may not access the .uk WHOIS or use any data from it except as permitted

by the terms of use available in full at http://www.nominet.uk/whoisterms,

which includes restrictions on: (A) use of the data for advertising, or its

repackaging, recompilation, redistribution or reuse (B) obscuring, removing

or hiding any or all of this notice and © exceeding query rate or volume

limits. The data is provided on an 'as-is' basis and may lag behind the

register. Access may be withdrawn or restricted at any time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

In fact, the website name was actually inspired by a thread that Mr Bennison ran on his own website which he called “Consumer Action Group Wrong Again”.

 

That thread ran for nearly 3 years with thousands of posts and despite its name, it was mostly dedicated to posting personal abuse against a number of individuals who regularly posted on the CAGicon forum, as well as to publish personal details about them, their homes, their families, businesses, etc. The Bailiff Help Forum are Wrong Again website had been set up to respond to that relentless, daily abuse, as well as to correct a significant amount of inaccurate information about bailiff enforcement.

 

Jason Bennison could hardly be in a position to complain that a website named 'Bailiff Help Forum Wrong Again' could be considered 'abusive'. Did he not think that having a thread running for 3 years called Consumer Action Group Wrong Again was not 'abusive?

 

I should perhaps also mention that the Consumer Action Group Wrong thread commenced in 2013. There were over 100 pages of posts before the thread was split in February 2015. That thread restarted afresh and continued until January 2017 when it was taken into a 'private' area of the forum. Copies of all pages can still be reviewed on the WayBack Machine and are visible on Google searches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am not sure whether i find this funny or sad. The internet becomes weirder by the day.

 

I always thought that Jason said he had nothing to do with Bailiffhelpforum and it was registered/run by someone else. If this is so, why was he the claimant in this case ? Perhaps i have misunderstood.

 

You have made a very important point indeed.

 

When the complaint was made to Nominet in April this year, it was made under the name of Bailiff Help Forum. And yet, when Mr Bennison issued proceedings against Nominet by way of an injunction he did so, under his real name.

 

It should also be noted that Mr Bennison continues to claim (to Surrey Police and the High Court) that he does not own the Bailiff Help Forum website. He uses this poor excuse to refuse requests by others to remove content from his forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is there any reason why this nonsense is on the main forum and not the "discussion" forum like everything else of this nature?

 

Also are we now permitted to mention"dealing with bailiffs" and "bailiff help forum" after years of being told that we can't?

 

Bankfodder being the owner of CAG can post whatever and wherever he likes.

 

I cannot see where 'dealing with bailiffs' is mentioned in the above, but since you mention it I suppose it is only fair to bring to the fore...Jason Bennison's empire

© 2016 Xlaw Ltd. No. 10240149

Incorporating:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

APPLICATIONS BEFORE QUEEN’S BENCH MASTERS

ROOM E118

Before MASTER McCLOUD

At half past 10

 

Applications

At 11 o’clock

Bennison v Nominet UK

 

 

At quarter past 11

Bennison v Harding

 

 

We believe that Jason Bennison made applications to the court to vary the costs order in his previous unsuccessful litigation against Nominet in which he was ordered to pay about £26,000 in costs.

 

It has yet to be confirmed but it seems that the variation may have been to pay £20 a month which would result in the sum being fully repaid in about 100 years or so.

 

It maybe that the application in respect of Harding did not proceed after the costs bill was paid

 

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/court-lists/list-queens-bench-masters

Edited by Andyorch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 631 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...