1  I n July 2002 Mr and Mrs Arthur started a Court case against Mr and Mrs Layte.
2 The Arthurs claimed that the Laytes had overvalued a commercial property they had jointly (50/50) owned with the Laytes for about 14 years.
3 The property (a shop in Redruth Cornwall) had been rented for most of the 14 years and had made an overall profit of about 200,000 (according to Mr Arthur) but the tenant had  "left" in November 2001 owing about 18 months rent and both owners had agreed to put the shop on the market following the re-decoration of the facade.
4 The Arthur's valuation was about half the 120,000 to 130,000 valuation that the Laytes had obtained from a local estate agent. The Arthurs disagreed with the estate agents valuation.
5 The Arthur's attempt to gain sole authority to market the property to who they wanted at what price they wanted via a Court interlocutory injunction failed.
6 The Arthur's attempt to sell the shop for 60,000 (To a person that they had secretly offered it to for this price before putting it on the market)  failed.
7 In November 2003, two years after agreeing to market the property, the Layte's were successful in obtaining a Court Order which resulted in a sale price of 132,500 (paradoxically to the very same person that the Arthur's had secretly offered it to for 60,000).
8 Instead of being pleased with obtaining over 70,000 more for the property than they had apparently wanted Mr Arthur first offered to re-sell (to the purchaser) for about 5000 less than he had agreed to pay! When the attempt to re-sell  was unsuccessful Mr Arthur then applied to the Court to restore the Arthur's "Claim".
9 The Court allowed Mr Arthur to restore the "Claim" but pointed out that it had no valid pleadings now the property had sold at the Layte's valuation.
10 Mr Arthur insisted he had a valid "damages" claim against the Layte's but he would not be able to re-enter it in detail (due to his recurring back ache having suddenly recurred).
11 Mr Arthur's intended "damages" claim relied on an alleged verbal agreement made in 1988 whereby the Laytes had agreed that the properties (there were originally two but one had been sold in 1988 at a profit) were purchased to develop and that Mr and Mrs Arthur would be responsible for the administration and the Laytes would be responsible for doing any work the Arthurs ordered them to do. As far as the Laytes were concerned the properties were purchased because they were good value (the Laytes had found them) and there was no pre-determined division of tasks be it admin or labour and if anything was to be done with the properties then it would be by agreement between the equal owners. The only reason the Arthurs were invited to be part of the purchase of the properties was because they were the first of the several others that the Laytes had asked that were willing to invest 50% of the money and 50% of any agreed work in the project.
12 Mr Arthur's restored amended "Claim" relied on whether or not a Judge at the future Claim trial believed the Arthurs were telling the truth about the (alleged) verbal agreement or whether the Laytes were telling the truth that there was no such agreement. Before entering the 2002 valuation dispute "Claim" Mr Arthur had already posted the Laytes a letter which explained what paragons of virtue the Arthurs were and another letter that described the Laytes as "having the combined business acumen of a goldfish". This was not really enough to convince a Judge that the Laytes were dishonest and hopeless business partners. What Mr & Mrs Arthur wanted was positive proof that at least one of the Laytes was dishonest. Ideally some sort of criminal conviction.
13 On 19 December 2003 (two weeks after his "Claim" had been restored, one month after the shop had been sold and about two weeks before sale completion) Mr Arthur approached Camborne Police and told them "he had just noticed "His" Fabric Rolling Machine (FRM) was missing from the shop, presumed stolen". He also told the Police "He had not visited the shop since about January 2003, he had no idea who may have stolen it, he owned 100% of it and it was worth about 6000".
14 DC Exelby 3655 (Camborne Police) "investigated" Mr Arthur's claim that he had been robbed of his 6000 item by person(s) unknown. DC Exelby does not impress. Nothing Mr Arthur had told the Police was the truth. DC Exelby could (and should) have checked Mr Arthur's story before instructing PC Carveth to arrest Mr Layte (for what? - Removing an item he owned 50% of from a building he owned 50% of with the help of two others in broad daylight, in front of a cctv camera, two days after solicitors had informed that the property had been sold and 5 days before completion?).
15 Mr Arthur didn't get the conviction for theft that he wanted but he did get a second prize of a PACE notice against Mr Layte which Mr Arthur used as his main (only) trump card to further the civil litigation (see November 2004 Application) for another 65 Court Orders and 9 years (so far). Thank you DC Exelby. Gratitude will be expressed in many web sites to come and should the IPCC become involved for a second time it is suggested you tell them the truth this time. DC Exelby should never have issued a PACE notice against one party in extant Civil litigation especially as it was issued at a time that the Police acknowledged that no crime had been committed (see "and may well be stolen" has been crossed out (signed) on the PACE notice)
16 J.Layte complained about the Police issuing a PACE notice at a time that they conceded that no crime had been committed. PS McElvie (assumed spelling) took the complaint at Falmouth Police station.
17 A few days later PS McElvie phoned to say that J Layte would need to re-do the complaint as "He had inadvertently used an out of date complaint form". In order to avoid a 15  mile round trip to Falmouth J Layte suggested that PS McElvie transcribe the complaint from the "out of date" form to the "new" form and post both to him and if they were the same then he would sign and return both to the Police. PS McElvie said he couldn't do that "Because he had spilt coffee on the old form and it was unreadable". PC McElvie volunteered to attend J Layte's home to re-do the complaint about the PACE notice.
18 PS McElvie attended J Layte's home to re-do the complaint about the issuing of a PACE on the "new" form (which looked exactly the same as the old one to J Layte) but (this time) said that it was not possible to complain about a PACE notice and the only complaint he would accept would be against a Police officer. It is obvious that PS McElvie's superiors had told him to come up with an excuse about the complaint concerning the PACE notice but the "I spilt coffee on the out of date form" is rather difficult to believe! ("Martians stole my homework" category of excuse).
19 J Layte thus had no option other than to complain that DC Exelby had not investigated Mr Arthur's allegations properly (or at all) and had arrested him without giving a reason or a caution and following the determination that no crime had been committed and ownership of the FRM was a civil matter should not have issued a PACE notice. Mr Lanyon witnessed this "arrest" and the IPCC letter stating he had left the room (or was leaving the room) is nonsense.
20 Although denied the option of complaining about the PACE notice all correspondence (to the Police and the IPCC) state the PACE notice is the main reason for the complaint because Mr Arthur may use it to perpetuate his "Claim". Mr Arthur used the PACE notice to perpetuate his Claim in his 4/11/2004 Application. J. Layte complained to the Force Legal Advisor (R.Glass) about Mr Arthur's Application using the PACE notice as his "evidence". R.Glass replied on 30/11/2004 and DC Exelby withdrew the PACE notice on 3/12/2004 but by then it was too late as the application had already been entered. J.Layte pointed this out in his communications of 6/12/2004 and 7/12/2004.
21 Regarding the complaint against DC Exelby. The IPCC replied on 31/1/2005. It should be noted (1) That DC Exelby did not explain why Mr Lanyon could not be present or act as J Layte's solicitor at the interview. (2) J Layte did not say he would leave the Police station (although as he had attended voluntarily it was his right to do so). (3) Mr Lanyon had not left the room (or was leaving the room) at the arrest. (4) J.Layte was not cautioned or told what hew was being arrested for at the time of the arrest (or at anytime).
22 Despite the advantage of the PACE notice Mr Arthur (and the Police?) lost his Claim (in the Civil Court 27 April 2005) that he owned 100% of the FRM and the Defendants had stolen it. The Judge (the same Judge that Mr Arthur claimed had awarded it to him) described Mr Arthur's Claim as frivolous and vexatious and to bring such a Claim was an affront to Justice.
23 Having lost his Claim regarding the FRM Mr Arthur knew he had no chance of winning what remained of his Claim and abandoned it in the first few minutes of the trial in November 2005. Mr & Mrs Layte were awarded costs against Mr and Mrs Arthur. Mr and Mrs Layte prepared bills of costs and served and filed them several times (see below). Mr Arthur consistently denied that they had been served and thus highlighted the flaws in the current rules regarding service of documents.
  For continuation of this part chronology please go to HERE



To view copies of Defendant's bills of costs served and filed BEFORE District Judge Wainwright's 10 September 2007 Order  CLICK HERE

To view copies of Defendant's bills of costs served and filed AFTER District Judge Wainwright's 10 September 2007 Order CLICK on Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6


As can be seen there is virtually no difference in the form of the bills before and after Judge Wainwright's Order which begs the question why it was that Judge Wainwright's Order relieved the Arthurs from disputing the bills served (and filed on order of the Court) before her 10 September 2007 Order yet Ordered the Arthurs to dispute (the same) bills in her subsequent Orders? (such as 30 December 2008 and 16 March 2009 Orders that relate only to the first Defendant's bill whilst her 30 October 2008 Order relates only to the second Defendant's bill).




















































Feb 2012 screenshot
1 Drink driver fails to convince magistrates that it is OK to drink and drive in TESCO car park because it is private land


2 Drink driver receives four year ban for drink driving in POOL MARKET car park (Private land next door to TESCO car park) View
3 Angry motorist who attacked a wheel clamper with toy scooter loses appeal    (Western Morning News article) View
4 Angry motorist who attacked a wheel clamper with toy scooter loses appeal    (West Briton article) View
5 Angry motorist who claimed it was illegal to clamp his car loses appeal and his wife is fined for assaulting the clamper View
6 Mr and Mrs Arthur lose appeal against the former operators of POOL MARKET View

Site under construction - Last updated 28 May 2017

Claimants    (but see HERE)