Out of court settlement - Deception

[David willson]

The defendant has used deception/concealed a very relevant fact to do an out of court of settlement.

What's the best way forward to undo such a settlement?

I got to know about the concealed fact after the settlement document was ratified.

 

[kulture]

The best way forward is to ask your solicitor for their advice. You did use a solicitor? Details matter here. What you consider material may not be so. Also the effect or damage of such missing facts may not be sufficient to warrent the extra effort. Alternatively the defendant could have committed an offence and needs persuing by the courts. The best way forward is to get proper legal advice in private with a solicitor who has all the facts.

 

[David willson]

Thank you for your reply, kulture.

I tried using a solicitor but I felt as if this person has taken the money but she did not have the time or commitment to do much. Her understanding of my case was below par and the drafts she submitted of my writ were really bad and included factual errors.

After this traumatic experience of around 5 months, I decided to take over be a party-litigant. Before taking the money, this solicitor promised me to update my writ and then serve it to the court in a week's time but then she vanished from the scene for quite some time. My previous experience with another solicitor was extremely bad as well. Thus, I am reluctant to fully give my case to a solicitor.

 

[David willson]

The following summary is a bit more detailed in comparison to what I stated in my initial post:

Background

The defendant/University has used deception (concealed a very relevant fact) to do an out of court settlement. with the pursuer/student. The case took place in Scotland in a Sheriff court and it involved the Ordinary Procedure).


3 out of 4 of the demands of the pursuer/student in the out of court settlement were to do with confidentiality. The defendant/university accepted them and deleted what the pursuer/student asked them to delete and destroyed the hard-copies of his thesis etc. On the other hand, the defendant/University had made my unapproved (not yet awarded) thesis public my sending it to the British library a year and a half ago without the pursuer/student's knowledge or consent.

1. What's the best way forward to undo such a settlement? I got to know about the concealed fact after the settlement document was ratified. Naturally, I would have not even considered such a settlement offer, if I was aware that my research work had already been made public.
   

Additional background

To reiterate, the defendant/British university has published the pursuer/student's thesis which was not awarded a PhD yet without the knowledge or consent of the author/pursuer. This is in breach of their own regulation. The pursuer/student was planning to take this extensive research work to another university for consideration. The defendant/university has also cancelled the pursuer/student's registration. Based on the defendant/university's own regulation, the defendant/student holds the copyright of this work.


The work has been downloaded by several individuals ever since it was published. It has been finally taken down on the pursuer/student/author’s request as soon as he got to know about it, but it was still out there on the public domain for a period of around 1 year and 9 months.


None of the universities the pursuer/student have approached are willing to accept his work now. They have either said no or have not bothered responding.

1. To my understanding, this is irreparable damage. Please advise.
   

 

[MikeJ]

College question?

 

[Newchodge]

You have no chance whatsoever of doing anything about it based on forum advice. If you don't trust solicitors I suggest you take advice from some chap in a pub. It will be about as useful as anything you may get on here.

 

[David willson]

I am happy to deal with this matter with the assistance of a solicitor and I will try my luck with one again. However, this time I want this solicitor to be a recommendation of someone I know who has rendered that individual's services before. The solicitor needs to have knowledge of Scotlaw and ideally from the background of Education. The case is in Scotland so English law and court procedures do not apply.

Please do advice based on your knowledge. I am still waiting for the defendant's response.

Is it possible for me to undo the current out of court settlement by approaching the small claims court instead of the Sheriff court?

 

[Newchodge]

I am happy to deal with this matter with the assistance of a solicitor and I will try my luck with one again. However, this time I want this solicitor to be a recommendation of someone I know who has rendered that individual's services before. The solicitor needs to have knowledge of Scotlaw and ideally from the background of Education. The case is in Scotland so English law and court procedures do not apply.

Please do advice based on your knowledge. I am still waiting for the defendant's response.

Is it possible for me to undo the current out of court settlement by approaching the small claims court instead of the Sheriff court?

I have no idea. I have no idea how the Scottish legal system works.

If it were under English law, whether you could unravel it would depend enitrely on the wording.

Incidentally,

3 out of 4 of the demands of the pursuer/student in the out of court settlement were to do with confidentiality

does not reflect reality.

An out of court settlement has nothing to do with demands and everything to do with agreement.

 

[The Byre]

1. The animal you need is called a solicitor-advocate and they cost about £240 p.h. plus VAT. So you can expect to have to pay about £2,000-£3,000 plus VAT for a full written consultation.

2. You didn't get a Ph.D. You can sue all you like, but the Ph.D. will still not be forthcoming.

3. If you want a Ph.D., try another topic - it will be much cheaper and easier than suing a university and even if you win hands-down, you still will not have a Ph.D.

4. Try the Open University. They have a good doctoral scheme.

5. My 30 cents worth - put the whole thing behind you, get whatever settlement you can and move on!

 

[fisicx]

To my understanding, this is irreparable damage.

If it's irreparable what exactly do you think litigation is going to achieve?

 

[David willson]

Wow, so much negativity hehe

@The Byre

I only opted for the settlement to save my PhD after striving to seek justice for almost two years but now that cannot be done. I will dedicate my entire life to secure justice, if they did not compensate me in the right way and I am happy to spend money on another solicitor as well. I am in the process of looking for someone reliable, who doesn't change his or her colours after taking the money.

The demands were to do with the confidentiality of my work. However, it was made public without my knowledge or consent. The defendant knew I also have the copyright of it.

The copyright aspect alone holds great significance. Does anyone know how much is the usual compensation for publishing copyright work without the author's knowledge or consent?

 

[David willson]

''Defining Copyright infringement is simply any infringement up on the rights of a copyright holder.

Copyright law gives a copyright holder (usually the creator of the work) a set of rights that they and they alone can exploit legally (save for exceptions such as fair use). Those rights include:

The right to reproduce (copy) a work.
The right to create derivative works based upon it.
The right to distribute copies of the work to the public.
The right to publicly display or perform the work.
This means a wide variety of activities can be copyright infringing including performing a copyrighted play without permission, writing an unauthorized sequel to a work or simply making copies of the work.

In short, copyright infringement is a very broad term, rooted in the law, that covers a wide range of unlawful activities that violate the rights (granted by the law) to copyright holders.''


The university has destroyed my prospective doctorate and career aspirations. They have also significantly damaged my emotional well-being. I will never forgive them for this ever. I will only let them go if they apologise and compensate me in the right way.

Imagine doing a settlement where one party is willing to do a massive compromise and also willing to let the defendant go off the hook, if they can provide him surety that his research work will be deleted and returned back to him in confidence. In response to that, the other side makes it sound like that yes, they will do exactly that, while being aware that these demands of the pursuer are of no value to him, as his work had already been made public to the world by them lol Thus, in order to make the settlement work, the defendant had to ensure and conceal this from him.

Concealment of such a relevant fact in the stated context is hardcore deception in an out of court settlement.

I would be grateful, if you could all play the devil's advocate and refute the above. However, if you would like to add some positive points then please do so as well.

Many thanks in anticipation.

@fisicx The damage is irreparable which means the compensation needs to be huge.

 

[obscure]

Sorry but no one here can give you any meaningful advise without a lot more information..... including seeing copies of all paperwork you were given/signed and all terms and conditions you agreed to when you signed up for the course.

1. While you may own the copyright it doesn't mean that you didn't grant a license to the university to publish. It is standard practice in most universities that I know of publish (not for profit) copies of student dissertations. I know my wife's Uni published her doctoral dissertation online.

2. If it is in fact standard practice and was mentioned in the paperwork then they aren't concealing anything.

The damage is irreparable which means the compensation needs to be huge.

3. I'm afraid the law doesn't work like that. You need to demonstrate that you have suffered actual loss and then the court will make good that loss. "It's my entire future and worth a fortune" isn't enough I'm afraid.

 

[Mark T Jones]

Negativity or reality?

you appear to be set on a course of looking for ‘justice’ (Your version of) at any price - which is anathema to any business person. And this is a business forum


I fear you are also falling into the trap of holding out on here for the answer you want to hear. Anyone providing that on the information given won’t be doing you any favours

think about the advice already given. If you want to pursue on principle, best of luck to you, but take my word it can be a soul-destroying and self-destructive experience

 

[fisicx]

The damage is irreparable which means the compensation needs to be huge.

So you want money. Your doctorate and employment prospects are pushed to one side because you just want money.

Sorry to say but this just isn't going to happen. Even if you can prove the student took your thesis and published without permission the chances of getting any money out of them is remote.

 

[Mark T Jones]

To add to my previous post, most Public Sector bodies have access to a ‘compo pot’. Ie a pot of cash they can dip into to save the embarrassment and hassle of litigation


My guess would be that your settlement was the limit of this pot. If you force litigation they wil have access to some very good lawyers!

 

[David willson]

Wow, this forum is so active. I am very thankful to you guys.

@obscure

You stated:

''While you may own the copyright it doesn't mean that you didn't grant a license to the university to publish. It is standard practice in most universities that I know of publish (not for profit) copies of student dissertations. I know my wife's Uni published her doctoral dissertation online''.

The university only has that right 'after' the PhD thesis has been awarded with a doctorate, not before. I have double checked my former university's regulation and it is exactly that.

Based on the same regulation, it is the author/researcher aka who holds the copyright of his work, not the university.

Is anyone knowledgeable about copyright infringement here?

@fisicx

No organisation/individual/entity have given me this much pain and suffering than this institution. Previously, I only opted for an out of court settlement to save my doctorate and my career aspirations and time etc., even though it was a massive compromise as my losses were significant and like I said there is an entire list of these losses.

I am absolutely disgusted by the fact that even in this out of court settlement, they have used deception by concealing a key fact. I have already gone though a law suit and it is extremely likely that I am going to sue this university again.

@Mark T Jones They did hire a big firm and they have rendered the services of the same firm again. In the last out of court settlement, they had gulped all their legal expenses. A good solicitor is still a solicitor. He or she is a not magician who can do some magic and refute the stated narrative in the light of the hardcore evidence. Last time, I dealt with my case as a party litigant for the majority of time and still made the opposition swallow their vast legal expenses. However, I have to say that this big firm did manage to create hurdles to stop me from reaching the evidence stage by exploiting my party litigant status. I am more experienced this time, plus, it is very likely that I will be involving a solicitor.

 

[The Byre]

Several of us here on this forum deal with copyrights all the time - damages awarded are supposed to be commensurate with the actual financial losses incurred by the injured party. That means that you, as the injured party, have to show that you have had an actual and accountable financial loss.

If you tell me which geographical area of Scotland you require a lawyer, I can find a suitable solicitor or solicitor-advocate who has had experience in this type of case (negligent behaviour leading to loss of an academic award). It won't be that many - but there'll be someone!

But as I stated before, costs can quickly mount up and when you hire a decent lawyer, the price includes his or her staff and all their research efforts. There are also several no-win-no-fee partnerships, but they tend to want the low-hanging fruit and this one sounds as if it might be quite high up the tree!

 

[paulears]

Well I’m really confused. Education is covered by so many non-legal processes I’m surprised you are not dealing with the universities standards dept. The problem seems to be if I have understood that somebody has pinched your research and got their doctorate and you haven’t? If so then the law is really to do with copyright but most learning agreements take your copyright and simply allow you to treat it as your own but it’s not really? So first issue is establishing ownership. If you can prove it then the uni should ensure they awarded the doctorate to the correct person and they certainly have systems in England to do this so Scotland should be similar. Ownership is key. What has been established on this point?

 

[UKSBD]

You need someone to read the whole contract between you and the University, not just extracts.

The copyright will be yours but if they use the Open Access policy (and you agreed) they may still be able to publish it.

 

[Chris Ashdown]

How much time have you spent on this compared with getting a job

You have your papers published so potential employers can read and digest them to offer you a position

 

[David willson]

Thank you for your replies.

Is there a minimum period for the pursuer to undo an out of court settlement or does the reasoning of it alone usually considered sufficient?

 

[David willson]

And I really appreciate some of the questions asked but I am not comfortable answering all of them on a public forum. Once again thank you. Means a lot!

 

[David willson]

Hi again guys,

Since it is a case of deception/concealment of a relevant fact in an out of court settlement, I had to quote something from the other side's out of court settlement offer. This was done with the words:

''This letter is written with the purpose of attempting to resolve the dispute between you and our client and it is without prejudice to our client's whole rights and pleas. It may not be produced, referred to or founded upon in any forum or proceedings whatsoever, save at our clients' sole instance''.

I am assuming that in such a context which involves 'concealment of a very relevant fact/copyright infringement/breach of confidentiality (where three out of four of my demands involved confidentiality), sharing such content will be permitted. However, please advise if I am incorrect about this.

Thank you.

 

[obscure]

''This letter is written with the purpose of attempting to resolve the dispute between you and our client and it is without prejudice to our client's whole rights and pleas. It may not be produced, referred to or founded upon in any forum or proceedings whatsoever, save at our clients' sole instance''.

I am assuming that in such a context which involves 'concealment of a very relevant fact/copyright infringement/breach of confidentiality (where three out of four of my demands involved confidentiality), sharing such content will be permitted. However, please advise if I am incorrect about this.

You're incorrect.
The above text was part of a "without prejudice" discussion and as such can't be relied on in court.

 

[David willson]

To my understanding, this should do the job, however, please correct me, if I am missing something here:


''However, in exceptional circumstances, without prejudice exchanges can be used in legal proceedings. These circumstances are:

[1] If without prejudice exchanges uncover evidence that may allow a settlement agreement to be rejected on the grounds that it’s based on misrepresentation, fraud or undue influence''.

 

[David willson]

The content in inverted commas is from a solicitor firms website. It talks about the exceptions.

Is this website incorrect, obscure?

 

[The Byre]

No agreement of any sort whatsoever can involve, directly, indirectly or by implication, an illegal activity. Concealment of an illegal act is in itself an illegal activity.

Illegal here means criminal and is not a matter of tort.

As you have not told us what it is that was concealed, nobody can tell you if they acted illegally, or just concealed some things to gain an advantage, in the same way that a wholesaler does not tell retailers what his mark-up might be. Concealment that is doubtful morally (e.g. not telling you that you were never going to get that Ph.D. regardless of anything your profs might have said because they just didn't like you) is very unlikely to be illegal.

Once again - there is nothing you can do to get a Ph.D. other than to start again from scratch.

 

[David willson]

Byre, thank you for your reply.

Out of the four of my demands, three were to do with the confidentiality of my research work. I asked them to delete the soft copies of my thesis, return the hard copies and also delete my work from their Turnitin database.

I only made these demands so that I can safely take my work for consideration elsewhere. I already had spoken to another British university about bringing my work to them as well.

In reality, these demands had no meaning to me or would have made zero sense to anyone for that matter, if the defendant had told me that they had publishedy my work already so there's no point in asking for such deletions.

 

[Mr D]

Byre, thank you for your reply.

Out of the four of my demands, three were to do with the confidentiality of my research work. I asked them to delete the soft copies of my thesis, return the hard copies and also delete my work from their Turnitin database.

I only made these demands so that I can safely take my work for consideration elsewhere. I already had spoken to another British university about bringing my work to them as well.

In reality, these demands had no meaning to me or would have made zero sense to anyone for that matter, if the defendant had told me that they had publishedy my work already so there's no point in asking for such deletions.

Are these demands reasonable to the other side in the dispute?

 

[The Byre]

In other words, what you are saying is that they concealed the fact that they had already published the paper on-line.

That may have infringed your copyright (a civil matter) caused you personal annoyance (civil) and possibly unspecified financial damage (again, a civil matter). If both parties agree to the concealment, then all are happy. If you knew nothing of this publishing, you may sue them for infringement of copyright, though if you gave them the right to publish as a part of the overall project acceptance process, you would almost certainly lose!

Personal annoyance and unspecified loss of earnings - hmm. Very doubtful.

 

[The Byre]

P.S. As this is an entirely civil matter and involves a university in Scotlandshire, this is where you start - https://www.spso.org.uk/making-a-complaint

 

[Mr D]

P.S. As this is an entirely civil matter and involves a university in Scotlandshire, this is where you start - https://www.spso.org.uk/making-a-complaint

If we are going to be called Scotlandshire can we ask for Cumbria back?

 

[David willson]

"Are these demands reasonable to the other side in the dispute?"

They were not just reasonable, they were overly generous. My actual losses are very high. The deletion of work did not cost them any money.

And yes, I hold the copyright of the work. No university can publish a student's work before its been awarded a PhD. I have read the regulation and I am 100 percent sure about it. They have breached their own regulation and they have done copyright infringement here.

The point here is they have used deception/concealed a very relevant fact to conveniently do the out of court settlement and with the assistance of this, they managed to walk away from the craves of the writ. I sued them for a big figure. Thus, the finances are directly linked to the deception/concealment/fraudulent misrepresentation. However, since I have filed an appeal, I am going to undo the settlement and sue them for everything again which includes their latest nonsense which they utilised to do the settlement.

Is this really the best way forward? Should I involve a junior counsel and get his or her advice so he/she can suggest the next step?

This forum is great. Thank you very much for your contribution. It means a lot!

 

[David willson]

You stated:

''As this is an entirely civil matter and involves a university in Scotlandshire, this is where you start - Spso ..''

I tried approaching them twice and they couldn't help. They said their organisation has limitations and cannot investigate my complaint in its entirety. They also said they are not in a position to quantify losses etc.

 

[David willson]

You stated:

''That may have infringed your copyright (a civil matter) caused you personal annoyance (civil) and possibly unspecified financial damage (again, a civil matter). If both parties agree to the concealment, then all are happy. If you knew nothing of this publishing, you may sue them for infringement of copyright, though if you gave them the right to publish as a part of the overall project acceptance process, you would almost certainly lose!

Personal annoyance and unspecified loss of earnings - hmm. Very doubtful.''

I did not conceal anything, they did. To my understanding, this falls in the most offensive category of misrepresentation aka fraudulent . Why? Because by doing this settlement, they managed to make me give up on my craves which was a huge financial figure of over £300,000. I have an entire list for the losses suffered.

 

[Mr D]

You stated:

''That may have infringed your copyright (a civil matter) caused you personal annoyance (civil) and possibly unspecified financial damage (again, a civil matter). If both parties agree to the concealment, then all are happy. If you knew nothing of this publishing, you may sue them for infringement of copyright, though if you gave them the right to publish as a part of the overall project acceptance process, you would almost certainly lose!

Personal annoyance and unspecified loss of earnings - hmm. Very doubtful.''

I did not conceal anything, they did. To my understanding, this falls in the most offensive category of misrepresentation aka fraudulent . Why? Because by doing this settlement, they managed to make me give up on my craves which was a huge financial figure of over £300,000. I have an entire list for the losses suffered.

Sorry, what are these craves?
And how did they make you give them up? Some sort of finance deal? Seizure of assets?

 

[David willson]

The craves were based on my financial damages. I was so concerned about time and the way my party litigant status was being exploited etc. After I rejected their offer, a month later, they made the exact same offer but with this statement that they are going to ask the court to make me pay their legal expenses if they manage to get my case dismissed. I rejected this offer again. I noticed as a party litigant it was very difficult for me to cite laws and justify the legality of my case so I finally decided to accept the offer a few days before the diet of debate, not because I wanted to but because I felt as a party litigant I cannot go any further etc.

In this offer, they promised confidentiality of my work by saying yes to the deletion of my research work and returning the hard copies of my thesis. It also incorporated a no objection certificate so that I can take my extensive work to a different university for consideration.

(By the way, that university is not even interested in considering my work anymore, as when I re-approached them, they did not even bother replying. When I approached them initially, they seemed interested and said I have to spend a minimum of one year at their university to get to the examination stage and I was okay with that)

 

[Mr D]

The craves were based on my financial damages. I was so concerned about time and the way my party litigant status was being exploited etc. After I rejected their offer, a month later, they made the exact same offer but with this statement that they are going to ask the court to make me pay their legal expenses if they manage to get my case dismissed. I rejected this offer again. I noticed as a party litigant it was very difficult for me to cite laws and justify the legality of my case so I finally decided to accept the offer a few days before the diet of debate, not because I wanted to but because I felt as a party litigant I cannot go any further etc.

In this offer, they promised confidentiality of my work by saying yes to the deletion of my research work and returning the hard copies of my thesis. It also incorporated a no objection certificate so that I can take my extensive work to a different university for consideration.

(By the way, that university is not even interested in considering my work anymore, as when I re-approached them, they did not even bother replying. When I approached them initially, they seemed interested and said I have to spend a minimum of one year at their university to get to the examination stage and I was okay with that)

They made you give up these craves and they are based on your financial damages?
That doesn't make any sense.

The party litigant bit - would have helped if you could use a lawyer. Still, think of the cost savings.

 

[David willson]

They made you give up these craves and they are based on your financial damages?
That doesn't make any sense.

The party litigant bit - would have helped if you could use a lawyer. Still, think of the cost savings.

I wanted the next hearing to be of Proof but the defender objected and asked for the diet of debate .. in which the legal basis of the case is debated. The defender simply exploited my party litigant status and stopped me from reaching the hearing of Proof. As a party litigant who couldn't cite case laws etc. to defend the legality of his case, I felt my case will get dismissed so I ended up accepting their lousy offer.
There were other reasons to accept this offer which were to do with time and getting on with my doctorate and career aspirations etc.