Sepember 2014: Tim Line is arrested again for allegedly "breaching his restraining order". What a complete joke this is becoming. The "Harassed" is guilty of "harassment". As they say, common sense ain't common.
May 2014: As predicted, Bressington attempted to get this site shut down. I argued that it is factual, not deffamatory and Crazy Domains agreed. A sensible outcome for freedom on the Internet. He might have been able to supress Tim Line's freedom of speech but he has no juristriction here in Australia.
If anything, he has galvanised my attempts to get the UK justice system to stop Mr Bressington from practising law. He has caused too much damage to families already and must be stopped.
February 2014: Following a recent Court Judgement against Mr Tim Line, the original Author of this website, the site is now owned and maintained in Australia by another one of Mr Bressington's "victims": Nick Davey.
Having acquired this domain and copied the exact content posted originally by Tim Line, Mr Bressington is hereby invited to attempt to supress the truth here in Australia. Over time, I will add my personal story adding further weight to the argument that Bressington is not only immoral but also acts only to line his own pocket and not in the best interests of the families he is supposed to be representing.
ORIGINAL COPY POSTED BY TIM LINE AS FOLLOWS:
November 2013: After repeatedly complaining to the police in his local county of Gloucestershire, that this website is criminally harassing him, the CPS in their wisdom have decided to try and proscecute me. The evidence against me is frankly laughable.
A Facebook Group has been set up by my supporters since my arrest on the Bank Holiday Monday of 6th May 2013, exactly 7 years to the day since I first suffered at the hands of Mr Bressington. You can access this by clicking here
This website was never intended to 'harass'. From it's inception it has been here to INFORM and WARN others of the behaviour that they are likely to face if they have to deal with this man. It is also here to make CONTACT with and SUPPORT others who have been on the receiving end of this solicitors outrageous conduct.
Only very recently, I was contacted by a lady who was due to face Bressington later that day in court. She rightly felt worried, frightened and alone and was astounded with some of the actions of Bressington. I reassurred her and told her that I recognised everything that she told me. It was clear Bressingtons modus operandi was alive and kicking.
Later that afternoon she called me again. She was now over the moon, she said that after speaking to me, she hadn't felt alone and our chat had given her the courage to face up to him. She told the judge everything that he had done and Bressington had to sit there red faced, with nothing to say in reply. The judge accused him of 'muddying the waters' and she won her case.
It is my opinion that if this website has helped just one person to effectively stand up to him, then the effort has been worthwhile.
The website is also here to make contact with those who have EVIDENCE of his wrongdoing and who are prepared to act as witnesses when the day comes to bring this man to justice. I am confident of one thing - that day is getting closer.
To give you an idea of the complaints I have against him for the first time I am making the bundle which was served on both him and Awdry, Bailey and Douglas prior to its submission to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) public. This bundle had been sworn by me and yet 'after careful consideration', the SDT rejected the complaint because it had not been submitted in the correct format. Next time it will be.
Anyone out there that has any constructive advice that will help us win our case against him, please get in touch.
You can access the bundle by clicking here
Adrian Bressington no longer works at Awdry, Bailey & Douglas Solicitors in Devizes. Shortly after he left, I received a number of anonymous phone calls from a female or females telling me that he had left, but no reasons were given and my return calls were not answered. Although my main complaints are against Bressington, Awdry, Bailey & Douglas Solicitors are guilty by association and at least 2 of the letters sent to me were signed by a 'Douglas'. My solicitors also wrote to Awdry, Bailey & Douglas Solicitors to protest Bressington's blatant lies to a District Judge during one of the hearings. Our protests were not taken seriously by Awdry, Bailey & Douglas Solicitors and their reply clearly showed that they considered Bressington's behaviour to be acceptable. Once again the letter was signed by a 'Douglas'. For these reasons I am not prepared to disassociate Awdry, Bailey & Douglas Solicitors from Bressington.
Since leaving Awdry, Bailey & Douglas Solicitors, Bressington has branched out on his own and formed a company called A B Family Law. You can come to your own conclusions about the claims made on their website after reading about my experiences.
Adrian Bressington used to be listed as head of the Family Law department at Awdry, Bailey & Douglas Solicitors in Devizes, Wiltshire.
He was instructed by my ex-wife for the duration of our long drawn out divorce which began in May 2006 and staggeringly, continued until the middle of 2010.
Throughout that process, Bressington conducted himself in a disgraceful manner, well below the minimum standards one would expect from an experienced solicitor. The 'modus operandi' that he chooses to adopt is well known throughout Wiltshire and beyond, by judges, other firms of solicitors and any who are unfortunate to have dealings with him, whether as his clients or in opposition.
It is time that this man faces justice and is exposed for what he really is, and THAT is the main purpose of this website.
In time, it will also explain in detail, with irrefutable proof, the allegations against him. We are loathe to expose much more on this website at present as we don't wish anything shown here to jeopardise future legal proceedings.
If YOU have had any negative experience at the hands of this man, whether as a client of his, or perhaps if he represented your spouse or ex-spouse, we would be extremely pleased to hear from you. We are particularly looking for evidence, in the form of letters, court transcripts, tape recordings or anything else that you may think is useful. You will be under no obligation or pressure to do anything that you don't want to, but if you feel as if you have been let down by the system or feel in any way that the involvement of Bressington in your case caused you unnecessary financial hardship, harmed the relationship between you and your children or anything else that you just consider plain WRONG, then please get in touch. Several have already.
Contact Nick Davey via any of the following means:
- Telephone: +61 (0)466 745816
- Tim can be contacted directly on +44 (0)7718 877410
- E-mail: email@example.com
What have I done so far?
This section will display just a small fraction of the evidence we have against this man. It should make interesting reading for those scrupulous members of the legal profession and perhaps may even give some new ideas to the less than scrupulous ones.
by StuG (RFFJ) 28 March 2011
Mr Tim Line is a well known and respected member of Real Fathers for Justice. Wikipedia lists him as a father’s activist who spent 36 hours on Lord Justice Thorpe’s house. Soon after his family split he posted, on his own blog (www.f4jtimline.blogspot.com) and on www.solicitorsfromhell.co.uk about what he perceived to be the numerous disgraceful conducts of a Mr Bressington, who had represented Tim’s ex-wife during the divorce/contact proceedings. That second protest may soon attract more interest than the first.
As one can expect, Mr Bressington’s firm issued the usual threats of legal action against Tim if he did not remove the posts, emphasizing how their legal action could ruin him etc etc etc. True to character, Tim stood firm. Armed with reams of documentary proof, he told them to ‘bring it on.’ They didn't. And still haven’t.
That was all quite a while ago now. Today, I had the honour of joining Tim in the Royal Courts of Justice as we observed Rick Kordowski, the owner of www.solicitorsfromhell.co.uk, be sued for defamation by Awdry, Bailey and Douglas, the firm for whom Bressington works.
Yes, I’m puzzled too. How can this legal firm avoid suing Tim, but sue Rick for reproducing the same material as is on Tim’s blog? Simple: you manipulate the legal process and, if your transparent legal maneuvering is not properly countered, the judge has no choice but to play along.
The chances of winning under such circumstances are increased when the defendant is unrepresented and not particularly clued up about either legal process or the area of law they operate within. Rick represented himself. His legal opponents had a barrister well versed in legal process. Rick, conversely, is clearly still on a learning curve.
Libel cases apparently last for three hearings. The first decides the trajectories of the case - what can and can’t be argued. The second hearing stages those arguments and ends in judgment, so the parties need to produce all facts upon which they wish to rely on in court. The third hearing covers costs.
Two weeks before the first hearing, the claimants successfully applied for it to be dispensed with. This meant Rick needed to provide all relevant, factual evidence at round one instead of round 2. Although that evidence was easily available, he didn't’t produce it on the day. Tim, the keeper of the evidence, was difficult to get hold of as he had changed address and was still setting up in his new London accommodation. Being a lay person, Rick did not appear to fully grasp the implications of the change in procedure.
Consequently, Rick was slaughtered in court. His defence was stuck out and he was ordered to pay costs exceeding £10,000. Effectively, he went into court without training and without his guard up so, for now at least, he has paid the price of taking on a legal profession very keen to put him out of business.
The judge had a walkover. So much so, that he went too far. He humiliated Rick, and made a meal out of cross-examining him. It is questionable whether a judge should harangue a defendant and thereby manufacture his own evidence but, in this case, in the long run, I think the judge has helped justice along. What happened in court today was an utter injustice, but he provided Rick with a much needed education that’ll come in handy in the Court of Appeal. If not, it’ll certainly come in handy in the European Court of Human Rights, as the McLibel case indicates. But for now, with no money and no legal advice, Rick’s legal education comes the hard way – from judges. He’s getting to meet quite a few.
Rick’s career against lawyers stems from his own experience of them. He lost his business and home in a case where the Law Society upheld a subsequent complaint by Rick that both the lawyers, the one acting for and the one acting against him, were colluding with each other. The Law Society compensated him with £500.
Rick has received mixed reviews for his website, not least for his apparent admin charge of £299 for any solicitor who wants derogatory posts removed. Even his supporters lament this provision in his terms and conditions. It was something the judge relied on heavily today.
Rick’s main argument for publishing material about solicitors is that the postings on his website are in the public interest. The judge swept away this defence with a simple stroke; if the material is in the public interest, why remove it upon receipt of a fee? The judge considered the fee, and Rick’s impecuniousness (the fact that he is broke) indicative of extortion. “so, the people who wish to advertise on your site, having failed to obtain satisfaction via the usual route which bases complaints according to their merit choose you instead.” (Presumably the judge believes in the myth that the Solicitors Regulation Authority is a competent and unbiased monitoring system). “Solicitors then either pay the £299 fee to have posts about them removed, or face legal proceedings knowing your lack of money means they cannot receive compensation.”
Understandable argument, Your Honour, but flawed in reality. As Rick said, few consider the SRA as fair machinery for complaints. And no solicitors have yet been stupid enough to pay the £299 fee. Imagine the fun if they did. So how can Rick be an extortionist if he has not actually received any money? And, of the 1,000 or so posts on the site, only ten solicitors (1%) have challenged them in court. So either 99% of the postings cannot be reasonably challenged, or those legal professionals are happy to be slandered. Take your pick. Rick, in reality, is a genial, softly spoken, decent man battling against the odds. Today’s judicial character assassination was unwarranted. A further judicial slur was the claim that the title “solicitors from hell” – meant the website was designed as a front for defamation. Wrong again, Your Honour. It’s only defamation if it is not true and 99% of lawyers featured on the site prefer to leave their details on the site rather than sue.
Rick has lost all ten of the cases against him in court. He struggles to obtain the evidence required and struggles to fight his corner in court. He is a lone operator who is inundated with legal suits – he cannot handle it all, and the legal profession knows it. Today, Rick’s application for leave to appeal, so he could produce the evidence (absolute reams of it, which I have personally seen piled up in Tim Line’s home) was refused on the basis that the judge ‘did not believe the evidence existed.’ Here, I hope, the judge is on very dodgy ground. If it does not exist, why has Bressington not sued Tim directly and have him remove posts from his own personal blog? And why did he try to prevent a late statement submission by Rick to the court?
The judge awarded costs and directed Rick to remove the post about Bressington from the solicitorsfromhell website but Awdry, Bailey and Douglas made no application to achieve the same with Tim Line’s blog at www.f4jtimline.blogspot.com
The judge reserved his judgment. Personally, I believe judgments should be immediately available. I have seen too many Family Division Approved Judgments suffer from retrospective editing where grounds for refusal of applications or appeals have been textually altered from what was voiced in court, where additional elements have been fabricated, and important elements deleted. But then, the proceedings transcript for today’s open court hearing is already being prepared. We will be comparing the two to ensure they match up. Plus, the judge’s behaviour, more typical of judge’s acting in secret family courts than in open court, has earned Rick the kind of support he has so far lacked. Today, there was an audience to witness it all.
Bressington should not count his winnings yet. The odds will swing against him very soon.
Explanatory note to letter of 18th September 2006 Awdry, Bailey & Douglas to Pooley Dale
Mr Line is thankful for the unusually speedy response to the letter of 12th September 2006.
The children were aged 13, 12 and 10 and therefore quite of age to discuss matters involving them, particularly matters of contact with a father with whom they had always cohabited and had a fine relationship. The presence of lawyers in contact matters indicates the new reality of the parents not managing to communicate, so Mr Line was unable to discuss matters with Mrs Line ‘in an appropriate way’.
The children at this age and stage in proceedings have expectations and Article 8 rights entitling them to provide input in all legal matters concerning them, especially contact. These rights of self determination are further enshrined in the ECHR and UNCHR. Every effort should be made by both responsible parents and lawyers (on both sides) alike, to steer these matters away from the delays and pitfalls of the family legal system, when there are no child welfare issues. For a fit father to hold imperative conversations during periods of upheaval, and to make circumstances easier, with his own children, is justifiable. It is acceptable for both parents to hold discussions and to repeat until the children’s wishes and feelings are ascertained so they can be built into reality as soon as possible.
That the children came to and expressed their preference for a contact arrangement by the route indicated in para 2 of the letter of 12th September 2006 indicates their articulation and understanding, and Mr Line’s flexibility in ensuring the children’s wishes and feelings were paramount.
Para 3 of the letter of 18th September indicates that, as with earlier correspondence on matters of contact, Mr Bressington has not taken instructions from his client, yet (again) predicts a negative outcome to Mr Line’s proposals, which were agreed directly with the children. Mr Bressington places his presumption of his client’s response above the stated wishes of the children. This, perhaps, does not sit well with his client’s stated preference for contact matters to be sorted in a non-confrontational manner and by agreement. Is Mr Bressington presuming that the children’s voices would not play part in the agreement?
Mr Bressington writes in abstruse form; by using the word “we”; predicting his client’s responses and advocating for her without consulting her, he appears to afford himself an unusual propensity to her.
By replying before obtaining instructions, the letter fees are again doubled for both sides.
Midweek visiting and staying contact is the norm in this country in the absence of good reason to the contrary. It accepted practice by the courts to order midweek contact. Mr Line questions the use of the word “extensive” (midweek contact). Children also do homework at the separated parent’s home. Midweek contact works for children who empirical research shows to be those with the best outcomes after family split.
Acknowledgement of Service had already been sent on the 6th September 2006.
Explanatory note to letter of 10th August 2009 from Withy King Solicitors to Awdry, Bailey & Douglas Solicitors
This letter was written by Withy King to Mr Bressington because we had not received replies to our letters dated 15th, 17th, 22nd, 23rd and 30th July 2009.
The replies to the questionnaire were subject to a Court timetable and should have been back no later than 21st July. He eventually faxed completely inadequate replies, less than 1 working day before the hearing and the day after he knew Mr Line’s solicitor had gone on annual leave. (More to follow on this later.....)
The Actuarial report was subject to a court timetable and should have been filed by 17th July. Without Mr Bressington’s agreement to the draft letter of instruction, it could not be sent to Albert Goodman Pension Consultants and they could not begin preparing the pension report, something that was crucial for a successful FDR Hearing which was due to take place on 24 August 2009.
The Severance of Tenancy was an incredibly simple thing to administer and should not have required multiple letters.
This 5th letter reminding Bressington of his failings showed his flagrant disregard for Court set timetables and fell way short of a basic level of competence, integrity and decency you would expect from a solicitor. These extra letters only needed to be written because of Mr Bressington’s failure to respond and completely ignored the wishes of the court, which directly resulted in more unnecessary extra costs for Mr Line.
Other peoples experiences:
Nick Davey was another man who suffered at the hands of Bressington and Awdry, Bailey & Douglas Solicitors. In fact in many ways his story is an absolute outrage. Please take the time to visit his blog and read his 'Story of my Divorce'. You will find a link to it here: http://nunyara.blogspot.co.uk/2009/12/story-of-my-divorce.html
This is just a taster - there is much much more to come............................
Keep checking back as we populate the website with more uncomfortable truths about Adrian Bressington and highlight the failings of one of the most complained about industries in the land and it's complete inability to adequately protect the members of the public who use their services.
I have a feeling that Adrian Bressington and Awdry, Bailey & Douglas Solicitors are going to become quite well known, but for all the wrong reasons..........
In the meantime, if you have any information of your own on this man,
please don't hesitate to contact Nick Davey on
e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org Phone: +61 466745816
Tim Line can be contacted on +44 (0)7718 877410