Thank you for your email.
I apologise for the delay in getting back to you but I wasn’t sure at first what to do with your request.
It is not our policy to ask reviewers to re-assess their decisions unless the circumstances of the case have materially changed. In your case, it’s not so much that the circumstances have changed but rather that you have some further documentation i.e. some notes of a judgment that the reviewer would have liked to have seen before making his decision.
In the end I decided that it would be best to make an exception to our normal policy and I asked the reviewer if he would look at these documents and consider changing his decision. Unfortunately, his decision remains the same. Further, the reviewer has said that he is satisfied that no further documentation would alter his decision.
I expect that you will be disappointed with this news but I’m afraid that the reviewer’s decision is now final.
I’m sorry we couldn’t help.
I hope you are well.
After what seems to be a long struggle I finally have the notes of the first Judgment of the 09/09/10.
I have added my notes in italic to BDB's for ease of reference.
Although they are not the official transcripts they are the incomplete and unapproved notes of Bircham Dyson Bell the defendants solicitors which the High Courts obtained but at least they add some degree of clarity to the second Judgment 22/09/10, which seemed a nonsense impossible to understand in law without the 09/09/10 Judgment.
The High Courts said they could not understand the second Judgment without the first.
I know that Tom Mc Kernan at Edward Angel Palmer and Dodge thought that the case had no merit but he did not have any of the first Judgment so perhaps now the case can be assessed again.
In a case like this ATE insurance can still be gained if legal opinion is good. I have taken the time to assess the laws myself and think the case has much merit.
Ms Jo Flores