AcornDomains-News
Staff member
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2004
- Posts
- 1,228
- Reaction score
- 0
- Nominet Wrongly Blamed the Court for Error in the April Orders
- False Claim by Nominet that costs orders were still in place
- Nominet Refused Settlement Offers, Costing Members £30,000+
We previously reported that Nominet’s strike out orders were set aside, in the case about membership subscriptions in Cardiff.
Nominet responded by falsely claiming on its own Member Community forum that the problem with the Orders made in April was due to a “dating error made by the Court in one of its orders”.
That’s just not true. Nominet General Counsel Nick Wenban-Smith was at the hearing where that claim was rejected by the Court in the Judge’s findings.
The Judge criticised Nominet’s overly aggressive conduct of the litigation. That was the cause of the problem. The Judge made clear that the April Orders were unsustainable and incapable of being complied with, so they had to be set aside. Nick Wenban-Smith was also present for that part of the hearing.
Nominet drafted the Orders and Nominet pursued them to the bitter end, even after the error was drawn to their attention. The Claimant tried more than once to resolve it without a hearing, including offering a consent order to settle the issue and move on.
Unfortunately Nominet demanded the Court hearings in August that they lost. That will have cost them around £30,000.
Nominet then misled members about what had happened and tried to blame the Court for their errors.
Nominet spokesman Will Guyatt later wrongly claimed that the costs of the April Orders remained in Nominet’s favour. That’s also simply false. It then took about half a day of communication with their lawyers to clear up. More wasted costs, dealing with needless falsehoods and nonsense from Nominet.
The truth is that the costs Orders from April have also been set aside and Nominet will have to pay the costs of those as well.
We’re publishing the Orders, so stakeholders can read them for themselves.
Continue reading...
