Page 4    PZ200604 Communications and Service/Filing of Documents Log from 15 April 2008 (Formerly ) E&OE as of 17 February 2013

Go to Page 1 2 3 4 5 6  or click HERE to find out what this Court case is about

  Document date

Document . PDF

From To By PoP A X Uploaded e-mailed R Comments
1 16 September 2009 16 Sep 09 D to HHJ Griggs D EC P1 RD N   18 Sep 2009     RD BR254639477GB Posted 17 September 2009
2              " cc DJ Wainwright D EC P1


N          -- " --     Posted 17 September 2009
3              " cc J Straw D HP P1   N          -- " --     Posted 17 September 2009
4              " cc J Goldsworthy D HP P1   N          -- " --     Posted 17 September 2009
5              " cc The Attorney General D   P1   N          -- " --     Posted 17 September 2009
6              " cc DJ & A Arthur (Letter) D C P1 YES N          -- " --     Posted 17 September 2009
7              " cc DJ & A Arthur (Enclosures 1) D C P1 YES N          -- " --     Posted 17 September 2009
8              " cc DJ & A Arthur (Enclosures 2) D C P1 YES N          -- " --     Posted 17 September 2009
9 18 September 2009 18 Sep 09 D1 to A Clarke (Exeter) D1 EC P1       18 Sep 2009 18 Sep 2009   Posted 18 September 2009
10              " cc DJ & A Arthur D1 C P1              -- " --                              "
11 7 October 2009 7 Oct 2009 D1 to C  (posted 8/10) D1 C P1       8 October 2009     enc 2/10/09 app + www Arthur litigation examples
12 21 October 2009 21 Oct 2009 D to Arthurs D C P1       24 October 2009     Posted 22/10/09
13              " cc Exeter Court D EC P1              -- " --     Posted 22/10/09
14 23 October 2009 23 Oct 2009 D1 to A Clarke (Exeter) D1 EC P1 RD      24 October 2009     Posted 27/10/09 ( by fax 23/10/09)
15              " cc DJ & A Arthur D1 C P1              -- " --     Posted 27/10/09
16 11 November 2009 11 November 2009 D1 to HHJ Griggs D1 EC P1 YES     11 November2009 11 Nov 2009   Also by fax and e-mail (Postal strike may delay)
17              " cc DJ & A Arthur D1 C P1 YES            -- " --     Posted 11/11/09 (postal strike may delay)
18              " cc DJ Wainwright D1 C1 P1 YES            -- " --      
19 12 November 2009 12 November 2009 D1 to HHJ Griggs D1 EC P1 YES     12 November2009 12 Nov 2009   Also by fax and e-mail
20              " cc DJ & A Arthur D1 C P1 YES            -- " --      

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 1 2 3 4 5 6  or click HERE to find out what this Court case is about












































Claimants    (but see HERE)