Evidence shows that Aviva’s Client Fox Williams directly admitted in its letter to Defendants’ solicitors that it did not disclose all of Claimant’s documents to the court and to the hearing judge, stating: “As was established in the course of the hearing before Snowden J, the court does not yet have all of the factual information available and consequently is not in a position to rule on important questions”.
Evidence shows that Aviva’s Client Fox Williams directly invited and insisted that Defendant’s solicitors at Law Firm Wiggin LLP filed an application to the court to strike out own client's / Claimant’s claim, stating: “If your client intends to make this application please file the application and supporting evidence now without any further delay”. And Fox Williams lied to the Defendants’ solicitors on behalf of its client / now Claimant, and further stated: “Our client is concerned that it is your client's intention to delay making the application until the last moment in order to deliberately obstruct our client's claim”.
Evidence shows that Aviva’s Client Fox Williams declined to follow own Claimant’s repeated instructions to disclose to the court and to the hearing judge all of Claimant's provided documents to resist the strike.
Evidence shows that the hearing judge dismissed Claimant’s claim against the Defendants on the basis of that one document which Aviva’s Client Fox Williams disclosed and relied on as sole evidence in the entire Claimant’s case, and the judge stated ”the evidence disclosed no material similarities and the Claimant has not identified any particular aspects of the shows that I overlooked". And the hearing judge also stated further on the basis of that one document: “The Claimant has no realistic prospect of showing on the facts that a substantial part of the original work was copied”. And furthermore, because of Aviva’s Client Fox Williams’ failure of disclosure of all the documents Claimant provided for the case, the hearing judge declined to grant leave to appeal and finally concluded “ … so the Claimant is not dependent upon disclosure to make its case, and, as EasyAir makes clear, a speculative assertion that "something may turn up" is not enough to justify a case going to trial.” And that “something may turn up” that the judge referred to was to be found in all of the documents which Claimant provided for the case and which Aviva’s Client Fox Williams failed to disclose, such as the evidence of agreement files which Claimant discovered directly from the Defendants’ server and which serves as proof that there should have been no dispute and the Defendants were misleading the court and committing fraud with the intent to avoid to pay millions in royalties to Claimant.
Evidence shows that the hearing judge categorically rejected the false argument by Aviva’s solicitor Jonathan Wyles at law firm RPC, Reynolds Porter Chamberlain, that the ruling in the case Claimant filed in London High Court against the Defendants was “as a matter of law”, and the hearing judge stated: “The contention that I erred in law … does not have any real prospect of success”. The argument by Aviva's solicitor is therefore not a valid argument and Aviva’s solicitor Jonathan Wyles cannot use that argument to defend against the indemnity claim against Avila's Client Fox Williams. Aviva’s solicitor Jonathan Wyles and his law firm RPC have been unable to provide any evidence whatsoever to prove the false argument that the “ruling was as a matter of law”.
Evidence shows that the Defendants created agreements with Claimant immediately after Claimant caught them unlawfully exploited Claimant’s created television gameshow “Minute To Win It” which they exploited in more than fifty countries with millions in revenue and profit. Aviva’s Client Fox Williams however declined to submit the discovered evidence to the court when it pleaded Claimant’s case before the hearing judge, to show to the hearing judge that there should be no dispute in light of the Defendant's created agreements with Claimant and the Defendants were being dishonest and committing fraud to avoid to pay millions in royalties to Claimant.
Evidence shows that the Defendants paid millions in royalties to a Swedish third party on the basis of an oral idea of the television show “Clash of the choirs”, and there was never any dispute. The Defendants however started an abusive dispute with regard to Claimant’s gameshow “Minute To Win It” despite the fact that they already created agreements with Claimant and recognised Claimant's rights to the gameshow "Minute To Win It". Aviva’s Client Fox Williams declined to disclosed the agreement evidence to the court to show that the Defendants were acting in bad faith and committing fraud to avoid to pay royalties to Claimant.
Evidence shows that Claimant legally discovered the agreement files evidence from Statcounter, which is a web statistics platform that records traffic and visitors’ data on a website. Aviva’s Solicitor Jonathan Wyles at law firm RPC, Reynolds Porter Chamberlain, however is falsely accusing Claimant of illegally obtaining the agreement files evidence to obstruct Claimant’s indemnity claim, though Jonathan Wyles and RPC have been unable to provide any evidence whatsoever to support their false accusation.
Evidence shows that Aviva’s Client Fox Williams recognises that “there is no rule of law that prohibits evidence from being admitted in court however the evidence was obtained” in an article Fox Williams has published on its own website, and the article is titled “The Admissibility in Court of Illegally Obtained Evidence” and it serves as direct proof that the false accusation by Aviva’s solicitor Jonathan Wyles towards the Claimant is not a valid argument and Aviva’s solicitor cannot rely on that argument to defend against the indemnity claim against Aviva's Client Fox Williams, and Aviva and its legal representatives at RPC therefore have no viable defence against Claimant’s indemnity claim.
Evidence shows that Aviva’s Client Fox Williams also recognises the importance of disclosure of documents in litigation and the consequences of failure of disclosure in a video published on its own website, stating: “Judges are heavily guided by disclosure”, “Disclosure is an extremely important part of the litigation process”, “The outcome of a case very often turns on the documents”, “Many cases settle shortly before the disclosure phase or shortly after”, “It is important to be aware of the very serious consequences of non-disclosure”. Aviva’s Client Fox Williams therefore is fully aware of the serious damage and loss it has caused to Claimant with its own failure of disclosure of Claimant’s documents to the court.
Evidence shows that Aviva’s legal representatives at law firm RPC, Reynolds Porter Chamberlain, also recognise the importance of disclosure and have issued a warning with regard to the serious consequences of failure of disclosure in an article they have published on their own website titled “Double warning to Legal professionals: Do not cut corners with disclosure”. Aviva’s solicitor Jonathan Wyles who Aviva Insurance UK Limited has instructed to verify the indemnity claim therefore can not offer a truthful and honest defence against the indemnity claim against Aviva's Client Fox Williams, a claim which has been the result Aviva’s Client’s failure of disclosure of Claimant’s documents to the court.
Evidence shows Claimant lost the chance to recover more than £30 million in unpaid royalties and damages from the Defendants due to Aviva’s Client Fox Williams’ failure of disclosure of Claimant’s documents to the court and when it pleaded Claimant’s case before the hearing judge.
Evidence shows that Aviva’s Client Fox Williams' insurance policy agreement with Aviva Insurance UK limited covers Fox Williams' errors and omissions.
