A little background

When Bennison issued proceedings against Nominet, he wrote in his claim form that, as he was unable to establish who owned the website he objected to, he was suing Nominet instead! The whole Nominet saga can be seen here: Nominet, Bennison’s Nemesis. The judge decided to strike out the claim of his own accord as you simply cannot sue one party instead of another. Nominet had previously told Bennison in an email, that the correct procedure would have been to file a Norwich Pharmacal order in order to obtain the information from the company offering privacy services to domain registrants. At this point, Bennison agreed to such an order to be filed. The whole history of this can be found here: Bennison v Nominet.

As with any court application, Bennison had to give a series of undertakings, such as the following, which was written into the order sealed by the High court on September 7th 2017:

Relevant legislation

An undertaking is a promise given to the court, and once an undertaking is given, it has the same effect as a court order. That means breaching an undertaking constitutes contempt of court:

(4) So far as applicable, and with the necessary modifications, this Section applies to undertakings given by a party as it applies to judgments or orders.Part 81 of the CPRs

The seriousness of giving an undertaking to the court is reflected in the following:

(2) The following may be enforced under rule 81.4 notwithstanding that they do not contain the warning described in paragraph (1)—

(a) an undertaking to do or not do an act which is contained in a judgment or order;Part 81 of the CPRs

That means the requirement for an order (such as an injunction) to contain a Penal Notice warning the party about the fact that non-compliance with the order would be contempt of court does not apply to an undertaking, such as those given by Bennison in his application.

The letter

GoDaddy promptly complied with the Norwich Pharmacal Order served upon them by sending applicant Jason Bennison a letter providing the details of the registrant of the domain protected by their privacy service. This letter contained a reminder of the undertaking Bennison gave when he applied for the Order, quoted above:

Bennison’s breaches

Jason Bennison has breached the above undertaking not once, not twice but three times already!

First breach – September 2017

As soon as he received the letter in compliance with the Order from GoDaddy, Bennison promptly breached his undertaking by posting it on a public website he keeps purely for abusing people, called Plentyfishy. This website was originally intended to harass and attack David Lindley, but, when he decided to join forces with Bennison & Co., the Lindley content was removed in its entirety, yet the site remained in place as a platform for abuse and harassment of the worst kind! A brand new page was created on to house the letter, with the usual dose of abuse and harassment. Here we can see Bennison’s first breach in context, the letter posted up purely for the purpose of abusing and distressing the registrant. Bennison redacted his personal details off the letter he posted but the registrant’s personal details were left in full view. However, they have been redacted for the purpose of this post.

Second breach – March 2018

Six months later, Bennison decided to refer to the infamous letter on a couple of posts on his Bailiff Help Forum. On his first post, he says he handed a client the “court order” showing the registrant’s name and address. Apparently, from the details provided on the letter, the client in question was able to work out that he was “mentally retarded”. In the following paragraph, he says that “another client” carried out an investigation based on the details provided on the letter. So now we have Bennison passing the letter he obtained via an Order from the High Court, to various third parties, so he can proceed to post further abuse and make yet more defamatory statements. The man has no shame!

Later that same day, Bennison was still using the data provided by GoDaddy in response to the Court Order for yet more personal abuse, as well as posting up the email address provided as the registration email, on a public thread on his Bailiff Help Forum.

The email address has been redacted for this post but remains in plain view on the open forum.

Third breach – April 2018

Following on from the two previous breaches above, Bennison has now set up a page on his own Dealing With Bailiffs website, the business website he claims to have sold a few weeks ago, dedicated to personal attacks, defamation and disclosure of personal details, including full postal addresses and pictures of his victims and their homes. More on the alleged “business” sale here: Bennison’s Dealing With Bailiffs is sold! Needless to say, if he had sold the “business” connected with the site, he would not have access to be able to add new pages to it, nor use it as yet another platform for personal vendettas (to use his own words). This page also contains a copy of the letter in question, this time covering up not only the details and signature of GoDaddy’s solicitor, but also the paragraph that reads:

The registrant’s personal details are still in plain view on his DWB webste, but have been redacted (in gray), for the purpose of this post.

Is he for real? Does he seriously think that, just because he’s covered up that paragraph, it no longer applies? Here we have the relevant part of the page from Dealing With Bailiffs, full of defamatory statements. Below the letter, he posted a photo of the house referred to in the letter, followed by a voice recording of the occupier during a phone conversation with Bennison. Below that, Bennison proceeds to post extremely defamatory statements against another one of his victims. The whole page is a disgrace and shows that Bennison hasn’t got an ounce of respect for the law!

Is he on the run?

In view of the above, along with endless other examples, one can only draw the conclusion that Jason Bennison, owner of Bailiff Help Forum and Dealing With Bailiffs (despite what he likes to say in this regard), shows a complete disregard for the law. When you see he has relocated to the Philippines, it does make you wonder, doesn’t it, whether there may be a reason for that sudden relocation, especially when you consider he has family in the UK. When you look at the Extradition Treaty between the UK and the Philippines, you find that it is not in force…