Twitter | Search | |
Stephanie Hayden
ADRIAN YALLAND, , Joani Walsh, and the “injunction” that never quite was. A thread on yesterday’s strange events following the decision of a plucky and overeager BPTC graduate and Middle Temple student to have a virtual day out to the infamous “Court 37”.
Reply Retweet Like More
Stephanie Hayden Jul 3
Replying to @flyinglawyer73
At 13:00 yesterday my luncheon was disturbed by the most serious and unexpected of emails. It was from everyone’s favourite busybody, BPTC graduate, and Middle Temple student ADRIAN YALLAND. The subject line stated “INJUNCTION”. My heart stopped, gosh, what have I done? 🙀
Reply Retweet Like
Stephanie Hayden Jul 3
Replying to @legalaidloser
I must clarify that I am not . I read the “injunction” (actually an Order) and was immediately focused on the seriousness of it all. Legal correspondence between Adrian Yalland and Joani Walsh was not to be distrusted (fair enough).
Reply Retweet Like
Stephanie Hayden Jul 3
Replying to @legalaidloser
Twitter was ordered to provide lots of information about but had strangely not been named as Respondent to the Application by Adrian Yalland. The Respondent was ordered to provide details and electronic addresses of third parties. WOW! This had “teeth”.
Reply Retweet Like
Stephanie Hayden Jul 3
Replying to @flyinglawyer73
Then I put on my lawyer head. Adrian Yalland had obtained an absolute dogs’ breakfast of an “injunction”, because it was an injunction without teeth. NO PENAL NOTICE. Lawyer followers no that means trouble when coming to enforce the “injunction”. Oh dear, what a potential mess.
Reply Retweet Like
Stephanie Hayden Jul 3
Replying to @flyinglawyer73
Injunctions are enforced by seeking the committal to prison of the person breaching the injunction; however, to do that, the injunction MUST have a Penal Notice (basically warning that all hell will break loose if breached) prominently on the first page of the Order.
Reply Retweet Like
Stephanie Hayden Jul 3
Replying to @flyinglawyer73
Nevertheless, respecting court orders, I thought that as I had been served I better take notice PDQ. I acknowledged service and asked Adrian Yalland to supply me with Application Notice, Witness Statement, Skeleton Argument etc. All routine and very usual. Adrian refused.
Reply Retweet Like
Stephanie Hayden Jul 3
Replying to @flyinglawyer73
At 13:32 Adrian Yalland changed his story. I had got this all wrong. I was just being sent a copy of the “injunction” as a “courtesy”. Silly me, expecting that an email with a Sealed Order of the High Court attached was merely a “courtesy”. Imagine a lawyer thinking otherwise!
Reply Retweet Like
Stephanie Hayden Jul 3
Replying to @flyinglawyer73
Unfortunately for Adrian Yalland Mr Justice Jay (he of Leveson Inquiry fame) ordered Yalland to serve me with the documentation forthwith that I had requested. His Lordship appears not have agreed with Yalland that service of a blooming injunction is a “courtesy”.
Reply Retweet Like
Stephanie Hayden Jul 3
Replying to @flyinglawyer73
As of 10:01 on Friday 3 July 2020 Adrian Yalland has not complied with the forthwith element of the direction of Mr Justice Jay. Instead Yalland has served me emails of “word salad” and referred to the “express direction” of (wait for it) a CLERK. New on me this!
Reply Retweet Like
Stephanie Hayden Jul 3
Replying to @flyinglawyer73
For the lawyers amongst us the Adrian Yalland “injunction” is a paradigm example of a poorly drafted toothless “remedy”. No penal notice, no return date, too wide in scope, and does not name parties such as Twitter (who are certainly affected by the order).
Reply Retweet Like
Stephanie Hayden Jul 3
Replying to @flyinglawyer73
If the Adrian Yalland “injunction” was an exercise at Bar School then I am convinced it would be graded as “Not Competent”. It is one of the most poorly drafted pieces of work I have ever set my eyes on in almost 20 years of litigation experience.
Reply Retweet Like
Stephanie Hayden Jul 3
Replying to @legalaidloser
However, the “injunction” (had it been drafted properly) WOULD have very serious implications. Potentially, Twitter would be forced to disclose YOUR private conversations with to Adrian Yalland. Freedom of expression is restrained. Yalland was trying to silence.
Reply Retweet Like
Stephanie Hayden Jul 3
Replying to @flyinglawyer73
What has Adrian Yalland got to hide? What is Joani Walsh accusing Yalland of. I believe it is in the public interest that this dispute gains sunlight. Walsh accuses Yalland of professional negligence. She accuses Yalland of assaulting her. Yalland denies the allegations in full.
Reply Retweet Like
Stephanie Hayden Jul 3
Replying to @flyinglawyer73
My interest in this little drama is that Yalland (and others) appear to have been interfering in my legal interests and inciting others to breach orders of the court. Adrian Yalland knows this hence why he tried to stop me getting a copy of his silly letter to Joani Walsh.
Reply Retweet Like
Stephanie Hayden Jul 3
Replying to @flyinglawyer73
Except it was all in vain. Prior to the “injunction” I had already been supplied with some key extracts from the letter Adrian Yalland sent to Joani Walsh. They are certainly of interest to me and I have already commenced litigation in response.
Reply Retweet Like