Fair TradingINTERNET RELAY FLORISTS REVIEW
<<<<BACK TO RELAY FLORISTS REVIEW || READY FLOWERS REVIEW
READY FLOWERS LAWYERS
(Caeli Lovell & Leslie Venville of Archibald & Brown)
REPORTED TO THE QUEENSLAND LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSION LINK
In June 2009 Archibald & Brown Pty Ltd (Law Firm), Caeli Lovell (Lawyer), Leslie Venville (Lawyer), Gary Eryl Roy Owen (of Zoom Blooms), Thomas Hegarty (director of Ready Flowers Pty Ltd) and Harvey Rough (business director of Ready Flowers Pty Ltd) took offence to what was published on the websites, www.Fair-Trading.com.au, www.ZoomBloomsReview.com, www.ReadyFlowersReview.com and www.LawyersDirtyTricks.com.
As such, these lawyers decided to join with their clients in suing Gordon Craven (publisher of the websites) for defamation (SEE SUPREME COURT REPORT). As per complaints 1 below where these lawyers (and their clients) are in default of a Supreme Court Order to file a statement of claim and thereby are failing to properly prosecute the defamation proceedings they initiated, it is believed that the purpose of their proceedings were for intimidation and to silence the publisher of the websites, i.e., A SLAPP SUIT (Strategic lawsuit against public participation).
CAELI LOVELL lawyer
LESLIE VENVILLE lawyer
COMPLAINT 1.
On 3 August 2009 the respondent was ordered by Justice McMurdo to file and served a statement of claim within 14 DAYS.
The respondent is in default of this court order and as such is
potentially in contempt of court.
I believe it is grossly improper and below the standard of conduct
that is expected from a solicitor and officer of the court to be in
such apparent defiance of an order from the court that he is
registered to practice in.		 COMPLAINT 1.
On 3 August 2009 the respondent was ordered by Justice McMurdo to file and served a statement of claim within 14 DAYS.
The respondent is in default of this court order and as such is
potentially in contempt of court.
I believe it is grossly improper and below the standard of conduct
that is expected from a solicitor and officer of the court to be in
such apparent defiance of an order from the court that he is
registered to practice in.
COMPLAINT 2.
At 8-55am on 19 June 2009 I received a telephone message from the respondent made at 8-22am that gave notice for me to attend in the Supreme Court Brisbane at 10-00am for a hearing on 19 June 2009 that did not exist.
 COMPLAINT 2.
On 19 June 2009 I received a letter from the respondent dated 16 June 2009 that gave notice for me to attend in the Supreme Court Brisbane for a hearing on 19 June 2009 that did not exist.
The letter is at:
http://fair-trading.com.au/reports/archibald-brown2.html
COMPLAINT 3.
On 22 June 2009 I received the following information in an email
from the respondent:
"This matter went before Justice Daubney at the Supreme Court on Friday 19 June 2009 as foreshadowed in our correspondence to
you of 16 June 2009. We note that you did not appear, despite
having received our correspondence and telephone message to
you".
I believe the information to be false.		 COMPLAINT 3.
The professional independence and conflict of interest issues
arising when a lawyer joins with his clients in proceedings.
COMPLAINT 4.
The professional independence and conflict of interest issues arising when a lawyer joins with his clients in proceedings.		  
FURTHER DETAILS:
SUPREME COURT REPORT 		FURTHER DETAILS:
SUPREME COURT REPORT
Date of complaint 28/08/09
COMPLAINT DOCUMENT HERE
Date of complaint 28/08/09
COMPLAINT DOCUMENT HERE
   
And this has all resulted from the publisher seeking that the Ready Flowers website declares commissions and devaluations
.... a ten minute job.
The images below outline what the publisher believes, consumers (and florists) should be made aware of.
<<<<BACK TO RELAY FLORISTS REVIEW || READY FLOWERS REVIEW
Fair TradingHOME