http://www.techwatch.co.uk/2010/12/12/acslaw-loses-first-file-sharing-case/
QuoteACS:Law finally took the step of taking eight people the company had alleged to have downloaded copyrighted material to court.
Usually, the firm just sends out letters informing the accused of their wrongdoing, and asking for an out-of-court settlement of several hundred pounds. But in this case, they actually took the alleged offenders to court.
However, Judge Birss QC dismissed all eight cases. ACS:Law had pushed for a default judgement, meaning that the firm was trying to push through a verdict against the defendants because they had failed to respond to the summons, or appear in court.
However, as it turned out, some of the defendants had filed a defence, and in other cases there was no proof that a claim had actually been served.
In a statement, the judge noted: "The claimant's right to be a claimant at all is somewhat unclear on the face of the pleading. A copyright case can be brought by the owner of copyright or an exclusive licensee but the Particulars of Claim does not allege the claimant is either of those.".... (more)
Excellent news Dorset!
Whilst I don't condone theft, the way that the spivs from this company harassed and frightened people in order to extort payment in unproved cases beggars belief.
I really had hoped that they would have gone to the wall by now.
I wonder if the Law Society will do anything.
They're already under investigation by the SRA and that doesn't seem to be stopping them!!
I like the fact that the judge has questioned their right to be a claimant , this could end up with them being forced to repay every penny they have taken .
Now that would be fun to watch.
I just saw this thread. It does rather highlight what an abysmal law practice Andrew Crossley runs. The judge's statement also implies to me that he's actually operating outside of the law. I imagine it won't help him much when he come up before Information Commissioner and the Solicitors Regulation Authority next year.
It's all a crying shame really... NOT! ;D
This man is running nothing short of a protection racket.
I don't condone theft either but I gather that he may have gone after old age pensioners for money?
Quote from: pctech on Dec 18, 2010, 01:07:07
but I gather that he may have gone after old age pensioners for money?
If you look at some of the leaked company emails it is obvious that they were very keen to exploit 'soft' targets but less likely to do so if the target looked like it would fight back. Whether or not the person was likely to be guilty was a minor consideration in the process.
Despicable scheister operation.
Perfectly put, JB.