Many Civil court cases are between two disgruntled parties who argue over a difference of opinion. Each will put their faith in their Solicitor or Barrister to get the best outcome for them. But no matter how good their council are, they are only as good as the Judge that is hearing the trial. After all, in the Civil courts it is who tells the best story that wins. It doesn’t come down to evidence like in the criminal courts, just the version of events that the Judge likes the most.

Between:
Lorina Scott
Claimant
and
(1) Melvin Bridge
(2) Anita Bridge
(3) Melvin Jesus Casas-Bridge
Defendants
And between:
Melvin Jesus Casas-Bridge
Part 20 Claimant
David Scott
Part 20 Defendant

[2020] EWHC 3116 (Ch)

Before:

HHJ Paul Matthews

(sitting as a Judge of the High Court)

Case No: PT-2019-BRS-000020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS IN BRISTOL

PROPERTY TRUSTS AND PROBATE LIST (ChD)

Bristol Civil Justice Centre

2 Redcliff Street, Bristol, BS1 6GR

 

John Sharples (instructed by BrayDilks) for the Claimant

Rawdon Crozier (instructed by Nalders LLP) for the Defendants and Part 20 Claimant

The Part 20 Defendant appeared in person

Hearing dates: 21–24 July 2020

This judgment was handed down by the judge HHJ Matthews remotely by circulation to the parties’ representatives by email and released on the date shown at 10:00 am. You may have already read this, however, the story of what really happened to Lorina Scott was never revealed in the court hearing. The evidence that was denied it’s appearance in to the court has been included in the book, the position of trust. This evidence will show how the police, the Justice system failed Lorina Scott, and how the other parties in that hearing would go to any lengths to steal from and de-fraud Lorina Scott. New evidence has been discovered that Anita Bridge lied about David Scott’s location throughout the trial. She was assisted by her daughter Melanie Taylor to give this false account of events to Judge HHJ Matthews.  Melvin Jesus Casas Bridge lied to HHJ Matthews about his, and his mother’s locations, claiming that they were not in Ibiza at certain times, instead, placing blame on David Scott’s Son, Nathaniel Scott for purchases made on credit cards in Ibiza, instead of admitting they were there with the child. Evidence in the case was presented to HHJ Matthews and spoken about in detail in the trial regarding flights to and from Ibiza which proved all three individuals were there, yet in the ruling, HHJ Matthews claims this evidence, that District Judge Watson had discloses for the case at David Scott’s request simply did not exist. Cross-examination by the part 20 defendant of the defence parties/witnesses to the main claim was not allowed in the trial, even though Anita Bridge gave in detail, accounts of the part 20 defendant David Scott locations which has now been proven to have been fabricated by the Bridge family.