Brett Wilson LLP Seem to Have Had Only One Litigation Client in 2025, He Was Previously Charged, Just Like the Serial Strangler From Microsoft (Whom They Now Represent)
According to open access databases and public information
As a Litigant in Person I need to do my "homework" and study cases. Imagine my surprise when I discovered that, as almost 9 months of 2025 come to an end Brett Wilson LLP has not been chosen to represent any defendant, only one claimant. This man. The Wikipedia page reads like 100% advertisement (same as their other client [1, 2]). He's accused of paying below minimum wage to dozens of workers and the publisher defended its claim (not retracted or "corrected" anything), so it seems like classic SLAPP. If they don't back away and they spent money to defend what they published (like we did with the Serial Strangler from Microsoft, who was charged with strangulation and put in prison), then initial publicity will result in bad publicity and the Streisand Effect. Because sooner or later more people (including those who never before heard of this man) will discover that he "was charged with driving an unlicensed vehicle on Shrewsbury Road in Oswestry on May 17, 2018. The tax on the car had been expired for 11 weeks."
But he allegedly did worse.
Don't trust me, ask my government.
This is from gov.uk:
The title says: "Over 500 companies named for not paying minimum wage"
Apparently it has gotten worse because British media now says: "The Venue in Park Hall was listed following a HMRC investigation after more than 20 workers did not receive the legal wage."
From 3 to "more than 20 workers"?
Can you say "slavery"? Guess who else is not paying workers properly (or at all). He's in the UK this week.
He's only playing coy; he is a fan of the Cheeto mobster (Trump). As recently as yesterday he put this in his social contol media account (controlled fully by MElon):
He reposts plenty of stuff like this.
His online presence seems like that of a 10 year-old mocking the Prime Minister in crude, rude, lude ways. It's infantile and unprofessional. No person can maintain reputation by communicating like this in public. Yesterday also: (reposted)
To sue he has chosen the "assassins" who right here in Manchester (among boutique law firms) are notorious for being willing to take the worst clients and cases, i.e. cases without prospect of a win or cases that other law firms turn down because they value reputation, dignity etc. Only 3 months ago the UK High Court blasted them for the same tactics they've used against myself and against my wife not once but several times. They barely even try to win, they repeatedly try to secure a settlement by sending threats to people, even to their spouses (they label their extortion attempts "extremely generous"). They don't seem to mind stalking on their family members, either. They're evil and unscrupulous. As my wife put it to me after death in her family (and threats in her inbox): "Brett Wilson and also their clients are evil."
"Evil" is an understatement [1, 2]. They also libeled me several times, calling me names for merely pointing out what turned out to be true, based on their own client.
Just because someone is suing doesn't mean one has a legitimate case, more so when choosing a firm like Brett Wilson LLP, which bullies us this month:
- during holidays
- during funerals
- while we celebrated our wedding anniversary (this week)
Of course we reported them to the authorities for doing this. Karma is superstition, regulators are not. █