Ask us a question

Please fill in our form and one of our experts will get back to you. Alternatively, call our 24 hour number on:  0113 245 8549

Name is required
Please enter your email address
Please enter your telephone number
Please enter the best time for us to call you
Please enter the details of your enquiry
Please let us know how you heard about us
Please enter the verification code

We’ll only use this information to handle your enquiry and we won’t share it with any third parties. For more details see our Privacy Policy.

  • Our clients
  • Our team
  • Your future

R v a Company

Philip Goldberg challenges the prosecution by raising abuse of process leading to a favourable settlement for the company and a reduction in the cost application against the company.

Philip Goldberg represented a company selling second hand vehicles accused of regulatory offences. Despite what appeared to be overwhelming factual evidence in relation to all the offences after scrutiny of complex law, the prosecution had failed to comply with various technical points, pursuing the company in a way which raised abuse of process arguments and challenges to the validity of some of the counts on the indictment.  This put us in a stronger position leading to the local authority becoming receptive to compromise. The company pleaded guilty to minor infringements leading to a small financial penalty and the local authority conceding that they would not in the circumstances apply for costs against the company, which were in excess of £30,000.

The local authority issues a misleading press released reporting on the offences which had not been proved. Immediate action was taken resulting in the article being withdrawn and a balanced report published along with the company's comments which properly reflected the compromise reached. This was essential in order to cause as little disruption to the business as possible. Whilst the company had to plead guilty due to the strength of the evidence the way in which the case was dealt with resulting in fines of under £2500 and the saving of substantial costs which would ultimately have led to the collapse of the business.