LCRO 89/2017 FZ v LS [pdf, 229 KB]
...he considered to be valid; 6 (c) Mr LS’ communications implied that [Company A] would take further action in respect of the alleged blackmail in the event that Mr FZ persisted in his claim and by definition that purpose rendered Mr LS’ statements a threat — a statement of intended hostile action in retribution for something done; (d) blackmail was a serious allegation and it could not be satisfactory conduct for a lawyer dealing with a “lay claimant (and a foreigner in...