Read on Twitter
1. There has been, predictably, misinformation about Ms Stephanie Hayden (LLB Hons, Experienced Litigator) vs Adrian Yelland, and I have permission to say this (it is neither confidential nor harassment before someone starts typing a letter of even - or odd - date).
2. Ms Hayden issued a claim which Adrian informed them would be struck-out, and invited them to discontinue before they incurred a costs liability. Hayden refused (my grammar is mangled but you all know why I have worded things this way).
3. Ms Hayden then, in something they very rarely do, issued an application for an injunction against Adrian. Adrian then issued a cross application to strike-out the claim. They were heard on the same day - 30.7.20
4. Ms Hayden’s “particulars of claim” were deemed so poor they were struck out, and they were ordered to re-draft them, or else the claim would be struck out entirely.
5. Ms Hayden failed to re-particularise their claim so Adrian applied to have it struck out entirely. This was granted subject to an “unless order”, i.e. unless their claim was resubmitted, it would be struck out entirely.
6. On the day Ms Hayden's claim would have been struck-out, they discontinued the claim accepting they would also have to pay Adrian's costs of bringing his application to strike out the claim.
7. I attach the orders, from Judge Nicklin, refusing Ms Hayden's application for an injunction and striking out their entire claim. Once again, this is not confidential, and I have permission to disclose.
IN PLAIN ENGLISH: MS HAYDEN LOST.
IN PLAIN ENGLISH: MS HAYDEN LOST.
8. I also attach more orders that should further clarify that MS HAYDEN LOST.
9. Final Update: Ms Hayden discontinued the claim four hours before their claim would have been struck out.
Again, in plain English: MS HAYDEN LOST.
Again, in plain English: MS HAYDEN LOST.
