Result

1.Probond Marine was forced to abandon its High Court proceedings against Barry Carson of Carson Marine when he claimed through a statutory filing ‘paucity of funds’ being unable to pay his court fees which gave rise to the concern that there was no prospect of ever recovering any damages awarded by the Court.

2.Following his declaration, my solicitor wrote to Barry Carson offering him a proposal in a final attempt to reach a negotiated settlement of these matters and advised him that Probond Marine would shortly be placed into administration with the usual moratorium on claims imposed as a result.

3.In May 2020, as the sole statutory director and with considerable regret, I conceded to place Probond Marine Limited in Administration. This had the effect of several loyal and decent employees losing their jobs and a small number of suppliers being impacted.

4.In October 2020, Barry Carson raised a spurious objection to the Administration process with the effect of temporarily suspending the Administration proceeding but without altering the inevitable winding up petition. Carson has yet to present any further detail to substantiate his objection. It is important to note that no other party connected with this matter has supported his objection.

In an incredibly crass and contemptuous tactic, he has elected to publicly harass and leverage the misfortune of others to promote himself + his latest partnership with CTruk Marine Services Limited further demonstrating the narcissistic and corrosive nature of Barry Carson.

5.In the full knowledge to the contrary; Barry Carson of Carson Marine and the Carson Ctruk Marine Services Limited partnership has made numerous defamatory claims that various assets and items of considerable value were removed or hidden from creditors…  which is just surreal, as all assets and items of value owned by Probond Marine Limited were offered for sale and his own Carson CTruk Marine Services Limited partnership bought the majority of all of our outdated and obsolete Carson designs moulds and tooling.
 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Continued from #1 above:


In late 2018, Barry Carson of Carson Marine and the Carson CTruk Partnership was required to pay a £10,000.00 Court Fee for the value of his spurious counterclaim. Instead, he filed a statutory declaration seeking a total fee remission on his spurious counterclaim, which was successful, on the basis that he met the statutory criteria assessment of household income, savings and investments as well as consideration of benefits being claimed. In those circumstances, our understanding is that the relevant criteria are as follows:

1.Combined / joint monthly household income of less than £1,245.00; and

2.No more than £16,000.00 in combined / joint savings and investments.

 

Probond Marine Limited was surprised that he qualified for a complete remission of the fee on his counterclaim in view of amongst other things the following:

a)The summary of his experience at paragraph 3 of his Defence and Counterclaim dated 7 May 2018 (“the First D&CC”) details a career spanning over 40 years in commercial boat building (and other ventures), including contemporaneously a partnership with Meercat Boats Limited [as confirmed on his website (www.carson-marine.co.uk/partners)] and more recently with CTruk Marine Services Limited;

b)Probond Marine Limited had paid Barry Carson of Carson Marine in the preceding 3 Financial Years:

i.Financial Year 2015/2016  £7,000.00

ii.Financial Year 2016/2017  £14,757.95

iii.Financial Year 2017/2018  £9,676.78; and

c)Barry Carson of Carson Marine purported to deliver additional (disputed) invoices in the Financial Year 2017/2018 in excess of a further £14,000.00.

d)Barry Carson’s wife has also been working during this period as confirmed in her witness statement dated 4 May 2018 exhibited to the First D&CC (Exhibit 71). 

Despite a High Court instruction and our solicitors repeated requests for a copy of his ‘Help With Fees’ application and all supporting documentation no disclosure was ever made by Barry Carson, Carson Marine or Carson Ctruk.

 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Continued from #2 above:

 



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To reiterate; Probond Marine Limited did not lose its High Court action against Barry Carson of Carson Marine and the Carson CTruk Marine Services Limited partnership. Probond Marine Limited advised the High Court that it was withdrawing from the proceedings and that Insolvency Practitioner had been appointed prior to the case being heard by the Court. As Probond Marine Limited was effectively not represented in Court, its claim and defence to the counterclaim were struck out pursuant to CPR Part 39.3 (1)(b). Judgement was given to for the defendant on his counterclaim as a matter of practice.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Continued from #5 above:
 

1/1

1/1

© 2023 by Site Name. Proudly created with Wix.com

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram