Quick Points Regarding This Week's Court Hearing
Yesterday I worked towards improving clarity and details in the draft Order, which was finalised and sealed, then sent to me this morning. This is the third time (3 out of 3) that a Master at the UK High Court effectively sides with me. So far I am happy to report that Masters in the Kings Bench Division understand the issues at hand and comprehend the abuse to which my wife and I (and other people; many others) were subjected to persistently for a number of years already.
In respect to the legal process, I will not comment on the details regarding the Hearing. I can, however, say that it paves the way for us to squash all the SLAPPs from Microsofters. At the end we aim to be compensated for what they did. My understanding of British law is that those who sponsor such litigation can and will (unless infeasible) be held accountable.
I just wish to add that one key issue that arose several times is the Daily Mail case from a week earlier, demonstrating a pattern of abuse - abuse of process - from that same firm. What we heard here in Manchester in April 2024 was correct; this firm is notorious for taking and advancing some of the very worst cases, even ones without chance of success, as long as it gets paid to do so. It's formally known as abusive litigation and it's frowned upon by judges and regulators alike.
Robert Aslanyan’s claim seems relevant here*. Just because someone opens a case does not automatically means it has any merit to it.
Meritless claims can be handled suitably, it just takes time and patience, perseverance, principled stance etc. █
_____
* "Fremantle opposed the claim and applied to the court for it to be dismissed," an article stated last year, "with Judge Mark Gidden ruling in a hearing on Friday that Mr Aslanyan’s case was “hopeless” and “completely without merit”."