Barry Gamble (The London Vines Ltd) made indefinitely bankrupt

As 2016 draws to a close I am sure that Barry Gamble's many friends and fervent admirers, who may include Emma and Katie, will appreciate an update, especially as the liquidator's latest report to 30.10.16 is available here.

Although Gamble was made bankrupt at Croydon County Court on 8th December 2015, his bankruptcy wasn't confirmed until 2nd June 2016 as Gamble appealed to the court claiming that the bankruptcy order should not have been made. Fortunately Gamble's delaying tactics failed – the order arose from the misfeasance action brought by solicitors acting for the liquidator of The London Vines Ltd. In the latter half of 2015 Gamble was fined by default £741,647.45. 

The UK bankruptcy register shows that Gamble's bankruptcy, which would normally have ended on 8th December 2016, has been extended indefinitely – 'Order suspending bankrupt’s discharge under Section 279(3) of the Insolvency Act 1986 until the fulfillment of conditions as specified in the Order made by the Court and effective from 29 November 2016'. I will report on these conditions if and when I have the details.

Given the successful misfeasance claim – taking money out of The London Vines Ltd without proper justification – Gamble should have been banned as a UK director. That this wasn't pursued may well be down to Government cuts in The Insolvency Service. Anyway Gamble's continued bankruptcy precludes him from being a UK director.  

There is further potential bad news for the Gamble household. Amanda Gamble, Barry's wife, may well also be made bankrupt early in 2017 as reported in the Liquidator's report from 31st October 2015 to 30th October 2016. 'A Statutory Demand was personally served on Mrs Gamble on 22nd October 2016 and accordingly, Mrs Gamble has until 09 November 2016 to apply to the Court to have the Demand set aside and we will be able to present a Bankruptcy Petition from 14 November 2016.' It seems that Amanda Gamble is yet to be made bankrupt as her name does not yet appear on the bankruptcy register.  

According to the liquidator's latest report: 'Barry Gamble claimed that all of the net sale proceeds from the property at 6 Rowan Close (Banstead) were paid to his wife Amanda Gamble'.   

Sadly I suspect that few will be surprised to learn that it is very unlikely that any of the clients and investors with The London Vines Ltd will get any of the £1.63 million claimed to be owing. 
      

Gamble made an appearance here in the Mirror back in February 2016. 

Barry Gamble's libel case

In December 2014 Barry Gamble decided to sue me in the High Court for libel and slander. Essentially, despite the misfeasance judgment, Gamble claimed to be an honest businessman. 

Gamble based much of his case and claim on a company called ESW Exports (UK) Ltd, which supposedly had experience and expertise in exporting English sparkling wine. Central to Gamble's legal claim was that he had personally lost a contract with a Toronto based Canadian wine importer worth £80,000.

This contract, of course, was pure fantasy and the whole case an abuse of legal process. There never was a contract with the Canadian importer. It took Gamble some nine months to come up with the name of the importer who, when I contacted him in November 2015, told me:  

'I took the time to go through my records to determine whether I had any contact with Mr. Gamble as his name and company did not ring a bell.  I deal with dozens of suppliers every year and many of our contacts do not result in any business. I did find some e-mail correspondence with him in 2013 where I informed him of some upcoming opportunities for sparkling wines with our monopoly, the LCBO. He sent me information about one Italian sparkling wine which was priced outrageously with no hope of ever being purchased. I reached out to him again a few months later regarding another opportunity and he did not respond so I closed my file. I have never heard from him since.'

Gamble was not a director or shareholder of ESW Exports (UK) Ltd – he never explained why he would have personally benefitted from the fantasy £80,000 contract. ESW Exports (UK) Ltd was established on 16th August 2012. It was struck off on 21st October 2014 for non-compliance – no annual returns of accounts were filed.  

In 2012 Gamble did make contact with a number of English sparkling wine producers. One of them – Sam Lindo of the excellent Camel Valley  – was not impressed:

'I have only come across these guys from them enquiring about exporting our wine.  They sound like a bunch of nutters. I told them their website made them look like a con, it showed a total lack of knowledge of our industry, in particular how small it is. The chap missed the joke I made about only using Western Union money transfers.

Some of these people can be genuine, we make everyone pay up front for the first 2 orders and this stops any chancers.'  

Good to go: 

On 9th August 2012 Gamble emailed a number of English sparkling wine producers claiming to have 'importers/agents in the major citys (sic) in China and India' and that 'Myself and my newly formed export company ESW Exports Ltd are taking English sparkling wine to the other side of the planet'.

'Hi Guys,

 

As your more than likely aware, English sparkling wine has a reputation rarely surpassed.  In fact so popular is the wine of our fair land that overseas they cant get enough actually they cant get any, Myself and my newly formed export company ESW Exports LTD are taking English sparkling wine to the other side of the planet..

 

With a handful of importers/agents in the major citys in China and India good to go all we need is the wine..

 

So I write this email in hope that we can spread the word with gusto, we would look to purchase at least 100 cases of sparkling wine in various forms from as many vineyards as possible, of course if the wines are award winning in some way then all the better..

 

All monies for your wines will of course be paid up front and we would look to build from there..

 

Feel free to get in contact with myself on the number below or reply to this email at your earliest convenience..

 

Many Thanks

Barry Gamble'

Gamble's claim of 'importers/agents' in China and India is also likely to have been a complete fantasy. Interestingly no mention here of a Canadian importer....

Shortly before Gamble was made bankrupt at Croydon Court, he made an offer of settlement, which included a demand for £3000 to cover his legal costs. Gamble never received a penny. Once a liquidator was appointed in respect of Gamble's personal bankruptcy, they discontinued the legal action since bankrupt Gamble was not in a position to pursue this case.   

  

 

 

  

   

HoseMaster's Satire provokes Riedel PR Disaster

 Legal stiffy (5.8.15) sent to Ron Washam 

Washam's reaction to legal threats: 

'it's the stuff of comedy, ladies and gentlemen'

 

 The offending article and with  statement added 

later by Tim to make it obvious that Ron's piece was satire

What is it with large corporations and their corporate lawyers? 

Riedel glasses are the latest large company to court a PR disaster by sending letters threatening libel action to Tim Atkin MW and Ron Washam (The Hose Master of Wine). Ron Washam regularly contributes satirical articles on Tim's website. Riedel and their multitude of different glasses for different wines was his Ron's latest target. 

The Riedel article was posted on 3rd August. On 5th August Ron Washam received a letter from Riedel's lawyers threatening legal action. The letter provoked a very predictable backlash against Riedel on social media as well as several news items in the wine trade press – imbibe, wine-searcher and the drinks business as well a blog johnonwine. Many have reasonably concluded that Georg Riedel and the company's senior management has a serious humour deficit and do not appreciate satire. 

It has also reminded people of an article called Shattered Myths on Riedel glassware in Gourmet magazine published back in 2004 plus there is lively and mainly critical comment on the Wine Beserkers forum under the topic: Riedel Lawyer's Letter – Pretty Wacky. 

Doubtless Riedel's rush to law will now have meant that many more people will have read Ron Washam's satirical post than if Riedel had just quietly ignored Washam's jibes. What did Georg Riedel and his company think they would achieve by their legal threats? They must have known that the chances of a successful defamation suit in the US against Washam were at the very best slim. 

English libel law is, of course, very different, so the prospect of Tim Atkin and Washam (if he was included in the suit) facing a libel claim in the UK was a much more serious matter. Had Riedel brought a claim fighting a case could have involved Tim and, possibly Ron, in huge legal bills along with all the stress and time such a case would have involved. But would Riedel have gone to law? Would they have welcomed the significant publicity that such as case would have generated? I rather doubt it!

Today Tim has added a covering comment to the post – see below. Tim has declined to comment. However, I assume from some of the language used that this may be an agreed statement.    

'In this piece, US-based wine writer Ron Washam pokes fun at Riedel, the wine glass company, a brand that I respect and use personally. This is a piece of satiricial writing. No offence is meant to be caused either to Georg Riedel or to his business. Please note that no interview with Georg Riedel took place in the creation of this article and that all quotes are fictitious and do not represent the personal views or business practices of Georg Riedel or his company. Tim Atkin' 

I cannot imagine anyone reading Ron's post thinking this was a real interview with Georg Riedel with quotes like this:

"Sommeliers are the stupidest, most gullible, people I deal with, and, thus, my best messengers. I throw them expensive luncheons, taste them on fine wines, and I convince them, because they are essentially very insecure little people, that each wine glass is better than the previous for exploring a wine’s depths. I can see their beady little eyes light up. They spend their lives convincing people that more expensive wines are better. I simply speak their language back at them, only about wine glasses, and it always works.”
 

Riedel has joined a growing list of large corporations or powerful organisations prepared to use their lawyers all too ready to throw their corporate weight about to bully either smaller companies or journalists into submission. The CIVC's persecution of Jayne Powell (aka Champagne Jayne) and Veuve Clicquot's pursuit of small producers using yellow/orange labels on their sparkling wines come immediately to mind.   

Incidentally I'm amazed by the number of Proseccos with yellow/orange labels – I had just never realised how much Prosecco is now made by Veuve Clicquot!  

An update (Monday 10th August 2015)
A news item on The Drinks Business announces that the dispute has been resolved. However, it would surely have been better for Riedel to have contacted Tim Atkin (not Atkins as many appear to believe) discreetly before they fired off legal letters to Tim and Ron Washam.   

Changes to UK libel laws affecting the internet

From The Guardian 12.6.12:

'Major reforms of the libel laws will see a duty placed on internet service providers to try to identify internet trolls without victims needing to resort to costly legal action.

Websites will also be given greater protection from being sued if they help to identify those posting defamatory messages, under government plans.'

Read the rest here. http://?www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/jun/12/internet-trolls-bill-defamation-online

There are also plans to reduce the time limit on bringing libel actions. Currently every time a story is accessed or downloaded on the net, this counts as a new publication. In effect there is thus no time limit on bringing an action. There is a proposal to limit the time that a libel action can be brought against a publication to one year. 

Without seeing the detail these proposals appear to be sensible and to bring the libel laws more in line with current reality. It will, however, be important that there is a distinction made between malicious trolls and courageous and truthful whistleblowers. Easy to say but in reality a distinction difficult to make in law. Naturally wrongdoers being exposed may well claim that this is the action of a 'malicious troll'.    

More on this story in The Press Gazette.

Quelle surprise, comments on twitter etc. can be libelous!

Apologies for being rather behind with the news here as the result of the UK libel case involving Chris Cairns and Lalit Modi was handed down on 26th March. I had followed the case, which was heard in early March, but then forgot to look out for the judge to deliver his verdict, due a few weeks later. Obviously too caught up with the Touraine Spring, wines etc.. 

The judge found in Cairns’ favour finding that Modi’s tweet had been libelous and he awarded him £90,000 in damages. 

I think it was predictable that the judge found that comments on twitter and other social network sites could constitute libel. Anyone who thought that social networks including blogs are a free-for-all, unregulated arena was being foolish and naive. One surprise is that a number of witnesses at the Levenson Inquiry into UK press standards have claimed that the internet is unregulated. Although it is true there is no internet press body and difficult to imagine how this might operate, bloggers, facers, twitters etc. can indeed be pursued under the laws of libel.        

Modi has said that he will appeal.

Links:

Chris Cairns wins £90,000 libel damagesover match-fixing claim

• Former New Zealand captain sued Lalit Modi over allegation
• Modi 'singularly failed' to back up claim made on Twitter

Chris Cairns libel trial: Social networkersneed to take greater care before expressing their views

Communication in social media such as Twitter is often seen as canteen gossip or private discussions but from a legal perspective they are nothing of the sort.

Modi to appeal Cairns' libel win

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10794866

http://bit.ly/Hfcf4w