Page 1     PZ200604 Communications and Service/Filing of Documents Log from 15 April 2008 (Formerly ) E&OE as of 16 February 2013                          

Go to Page 2 3 4 5 6 or click HERE to find out what this Court case is about.    Bill filed at Court           Bill served on Arthurs 

  Document date

Document . PDF

From To By PoP A X Uploaded e-mailed R Comments
1 .15 April 2008 Second Defendant's amended bill D2 C P1 yes n   7 March 2012 .No   also  filed on 17 May 2008 
2 .16 April 2008 16 Apr 2008 D1 to Arthurs D1 C P1 yes n   16 April 2008 16 April 2008 DF copy cc DJ Middleton
3 .18 April 2008 copy1 16 Apr 2008 D1 to Arthurs D1 C P1 yes n   18 April 2008 18 April 2008 DF copy of  page item 2 .
4 .20 April 2008 20 Apr 2008 D1 to Mr Arthur D1 C1 P1 yes n   20 April 2008. 20 April 2008 DF copy cc DJ Middleton (POP)
5 .23 April 2008 signed for copy 16/4/08 to Arthurs D1 C RD1 RD n L 23 April 2008 23 April 2008 DF Recorded delivery copy ( lost by Royal Mail )
6 .24 April 2008 JL BILL to DJ Middleton & Arthurs D1 C P1 yes y   24 April 2008 24 April 2008 DF (only the 6 changed pages from 2007 bill)
7             "       "    cc  to HHJ Griggs . . P1 . n          -- " -- .   (Not acknowledged by Arthurs or Court save that
8             "       "    cc  to DJ Wainwright . . P1 . n          -- " -- .   DJ Middleton requested on  8 May 2008   a full bill be served and filed again (it was see 17 and 18 below)
9             "       "    cc  to DJ Mitchell . . P1 . n          -- " -- .    
10             "       "    signed for copy to Arthurs D1 C RD1 RD n L . .   Recorded delivery copy of the 6 changed pages already posted. This was lost by royal Mail
11 26 April 2008 26 Apr 2008 D1 to Arthurs D1 C P1   n  

27 April 2008

27 April 2008


Please respond to above (no response received)

12             "       "   cc  to DJ Middleton D1  C P1   n  

       -- " --




13 30 April 2008

Not sent ... revised as 14 below

14 2 May 2008 2 May 2008 D1 to Arthurs D1 C P1 yes n   4 May 2008 4 May 2008 DF (Not responded to or acknowledged)
15             "       "   cc  to DJ Middleton D1 C P1   n          -- " --     .
16             "       "    signed for copy to Arthurs D1 C RD1 RD n L        -- " --     Recorded delivery item lost by Royal Mail
17 14 May 2008 Compliment slip + FULL Bill to Arthurs (This is a white paper copy (no blue pages)) D1 C RD1 RD Y S 20 May 2008     JL FULL Bill by RD (on Court's 8 May 2008 request) (signed for again. Not returned but receipt denied 1 year later later see Arthur 14/5/2009)
18 17 May 2008 Letter (cc Arthurs)  +  FULL bill copy filed @ Truro Court  (This is a copy without the highlighted text) D1 TC P1 YES y   20 May 2008 20 May 2008 DF FULL bill copy to Truro Court as 17 above (on Court's 8 May 2008 request) (letter only cc Arthurs as bill already signed for - see above and highlighted text of letter). Note also Arthur 14/5/2009
19 7 June 2008 Letter (cc Arthurs)   +   bill to Court D1 TC P1 YES y   8 June 2008     Bill filed @ Court for 4th time (this time with yellow highlights removed @ Court's 3 June request)

7 June 2008

RD copy of 19 (7 June 2008)  Letter  (only) bill already served and signed for on 14 May 2008 D1 C RD1 RD n L

8 June 2008



posted by RD on 9 June 2008 but lost by Royal Mail.

From / To  D = Defendants D1 = JL (Defendant 1)  D2 = KL Defendant 2 C= Claimants  C1= D Arthur  C2= A Arthur  TC=Truro Court EC = Exeter Court P=Police  V=Various V(n)= n Various

By             (Service method)    P1 or P1 =  First class post  RD1 = Recorded Delivery first class post    H or H = Hand delivery  F= Fax E=email

PoP           (Proof of Posting?)  Y = certificate of posting     RD =  "Signed for" certificate or PO receipt

A               (Acknowledged ?)   n = no   y = yes    R  = Refused RD1    Y  = yes  (RD cert of delivery uploaded)

X               (Explanation)             S = who signed for the RD item     R = returned refused item      L = item inexplicably lost by Royal Mail

R               (Email received ?)     n = no   y = yes   DF = Delivery Failed e-mail from server


  Notes regarding this communications log web site (Formally

Because Mr Arthur (and/or the Police ?) complained about this web site it has now been re-directed to the unconnected site (on 1 & 1 Internet's and Mr Arthur's approval)

Click on the photos of Mr Arthur's notices (which he confirmed may be uploaded) to reveal why the public should not be deceived (Note that Mr Arthur obviously was deceived by his own notices).


It was only necessary to set up the  web site (in April 2008) because Mr Arthur invariably denied that he had been served process documents. If served by first class post he would simply deny he had received them. If served by recorded delivery he would either refuse to accept them or if he actually signed for them he would claim the envelope contained something other than what was posted. If delivered by hand he would usually post them back and claim they had not been served. Since setting up this communications log web site most documents were not only posted first class but also posted recorded delivery (or hand delivered) and also uploaded to the web site (so that another copy could be downloaded if the posted copy became lost) This approach meant that every document was effectively served three times by different methods.


Since setting up the site Mr Arthur seems to have discovered a new method of avoiding service of documents posted by recorded delivery. Previously he would refuse to accept recorded delivery (meaning the Royal Mail returns them a couple of weeks later). Since setting up the site several documents served by recorded delivery mysteriously were lost by Royal Mail. As can be seen between 23 April 2008 and 29 July 2008 5 out of the 6 documents posted by recorded delivery were apparently "lost" by Royal Mail (Click on L on page 1 and 2 of this site to see which ones). The only one that was signed for (and not lost or returned) was the 14 May 2008 copy of Mr Layte's bill of costs (Item 17 page 1). The Royal Mail were consulted and their opinion is that it is inconceivable that 5 out of 6 recorded delivery items posted to the same address could become lost and suggested the Police should investigate. The Police refuse to investigate and claim it is a matter for the Royal Mail to look into.


Mr Arthur refused to acknowledge the existence of the web site but obviously knew about it and didn't like it because, some three years after it was first uploaded, he complained to 1 &1 Internet (UK) Ltd (who host the site) that it was defamatory because it gives the impression that he had lost the Arthur-v-Layte Court case whereas he told them that it had not yet been decided. and that it had not been found in the Defendants' favour. For the record the final trial of the Arthur's final Claim was held in November 2005 and was decided in the Defendants' favour. Mr Arthur's appeal was dismissed.


The legal department of 1 &1 Internet (UK) Ltd are a gullible lot. As can be seen from their email of 5 November 2010 1 &1 Internet (UK) Ltd believed Mr Arthur when he told them ( nearly a year earlier - in his 28 October 2010 Letter) that  he had won his appeal against conviction for drink driving in Tesco car park. No he hadn't and 1 & 1 Internet should learn that hardly anything Mr Arthur tells people is the truth. The same goes for the Police and the Court.


Go to Page 2 3 4 5 6 or click HERE to find out what this Court case is about.




































Claimants    (but see HERE)