Who came off worst when Mark Selby was served with a claim for £14,000 by George Barmby on live television – the ‘snooker ace’, and now defendant to a claim in debt, or his former manager?
The Mail on Sunday has the story here. Many of those commenting online suggest that Barmby could at least have waited until after Selby’s live quarter final match, which the Leicester player went on to lose. One or two commentators therefore also wonder whether Selby might now be able to launch a counter-claim for lost winnings, his concentration having been wrecked by the stress of legal service.
This is unlikely. Anyone who knows their legal theory will agree that causation would be an issue. Nevertheless, if Selby is, in a literal sense, two times a loser (in the sense that he lost the match, and was duly served with a statutory demand), so, too, is Barmby. In PR terms, acting as he chose to do was not wise. Managers touting for business would be well advised to display greater sensitivity.
Finally, a memo to Mail subs (and, indeed, Mr Barmby). The opening paragragh says that “Mark Selby was handed a writ”. He wasn’t. The good old writ was abolished years ago, to be replaced, in civil proceedings, by the disappointingly prosaic ‘claim form’. However, ensuing quotes from Mr Barmby have him purporting to serve any of a writ, a ‘bankruptcy notice’ and a ‘statutory demand’. We weren’t there, but we’re opting for the right document being a statutory demand. But nomenclature, when serving legal process, is important. So, too, when writing about it. Mail subs, do some research.
Pictured: Mark ‘Jester from Leicester’ Selby, courtesy of Andrew Boyers’ blog.
