Lexington Legal received a number of complaints from workers brought into New Zealand by ADD regarding the fees they had been charged.

Lexington Legal investigated these concerns, and decided there was one complaint with sufficient evidence and justification to take the case on. Lexington Legal tried to resolve these concerns directly with Alan Dyer, but that was unsuccessful. Lexington Legal then lodged a complaint on behalf of their client with the Immigration Advisers Authority, which they were perfectly entitled to do. The IAA did not find there was sufficient evidence to uphold the complaint. They had some concerns, but did not find them very serious, and so dismissed the complaint. Which they are perfectly entitled to do. Ordinarily, this would have been the end of the matter....

However Alan Dyer has engaged a lawyer - who by the look of his letters - drinks a lot of coffee and watches a lot of 'Suits' on Netflex. His lawyer has been demanding $20,000 from Lexington Legal, claiming that what originally appeared on the Lexington Legal website amounted to not just defamation, but "criminal defamation". Given that they have declined to provide any evidence for such a nonsense claim, despite evidence being requested, it was ignored. Again, ordinarily this would have been the end of the matter. Except it looks like his lawyer kept drinking coffee......
In late 2017 Alan Dyers' lawyer wrote to the complainant asking all sorts of questions about his complaint, such as: "we list a number of questions we require you to answer" ; "should this matter proceed to a defamation trial, we would require you to give evidence or, should Paul Brown call you to give evidence in his defence, we would be free to cross-examine you" ; "in order to assist our client and avoid a trial we request your answers to the following questions".  It should be obvious that the impact of a letter like that to a migrant worker was that he felt very anxious and worried, and did not want to be drawn into some kind of legal battle.  The lawyer did end the letter by saying that the complainant was not obliged to disclose anything and that he was recommended to seek independent legal advice, but that was at the end on page 3. The letter had the predictable effect of causing the complainant anxiety and stress.

I think it reflects very poorly on ADD Workers to pursue the complainant about an imaginary claim of defamation. I think this is a 'storm in a coffee cup' that could have been resolved about a year ago with a mutually agreed statement. Unfortunately for Alan Dyer, he engaged an idiot lawyer.......and I now have written 10 times what was originally on my website.

This is an ongoing matter and there will be regular updates.

Image result for suits lawyer quotes

Give us a call - it's free - and lets have a chat.

If you want to know more about Paul, go to : Paul Brown

Contact P B Employment Law for a free consultation