Anthony Hamilton v Di Resta Pt2

I can't get interested in this case because in my mind it comes down to a dispute over a deal that never happened between a desperate driver and a questionable manager.   

Anthony Hamilton has done brilliantly to help get his son into F1, but that is the limit of his talents as far as I'm concerned. It seems since 2007 he's done everything he could to establish himself as a "player" in the paddock, but it all looks to be a bit of a circus. As for Di Resta, for a driver not quite able to hold down his seat in a mid field team, the answer should have been talent and not a fictitious sponsorship deal from Lewis' dad.

As for Di Resta, for a driver not quite able to hold down his seat in a mid field team, the answer should have been talent and not a fictitious sponsorship deal from Lewis' dad.

I'd like to think given Hamilton Jr's income, and Hamilton Sr's efforts to get him through karting and etc; Dad would be taken care of.

 

Wouldn't most of us if given the money? If I made it big, even without my parents involvement, I'd help them pay off their house, my sister's final year of college, etc. 

Oh dear, it seems Anthony forgot all about the £500,000 a year that Lewis has been paying him, despite his claims last week of not being paid, seems to me honesty is a total stranger to him.

"as it emerged that he had after all been paid £3 million by his son Lewis Hamilton, contradicting evidence he gave last week."

"I completely forgot there was a service agreement between Lewis' company and my company [Hamilton Management Group]," Hamilton said. "I never submitted an invoice in 2007, 2008 or 2009. He paid up after we split in 2010. He still maintained to pay HMG half a million pounds a year until 2012."

http://www.telegraph...ourt-claim.html

To  "forget" that ammount  of income does not imply great managerial skills.

For a former  IT consultant  "forget  eMail headers show an audit trail  leaves one wondering.

To  "forget" that ammount  of income does not imply great managerial skills.

 

For a former  IT consultant  "forget  eMail headers show an audit trail  leaves one wondering.

I would imagine he is just clearing up any possible misperceptions (about Lewis) arising from his previous statements. These transactions with Lewis are not relevant to the present case at all as far as I can see. There is no reason why they would have needed to be mentioned.

I would imagine he is just clearing up any possible misperceptions (about Lewis) arising from his previous statements. These transactions with Lewis are not relevant to the present case at all as far as I can see. There is no reason why they would have needed to be mentioned.

I think the reason it's mentioned is because it was the money LH allegedly wanted to to gift his father with which the latter intended to finance that energy drinks deal.

Edited by as65p, 09 December 2013 - 23:07.

Oh dear, it seems Anthony forgot all about the £500,000 a year that Lewis has been paying him, despite his claims last week of not being paid, seems to me honesty is a total stranger to him.
 
 
"as it emerged that he had after all been paid £3 million by his son Lewis Hamilton, contradicting evidence he gave last week."
 
"I completely forgot there was a service agreement between Lewis' company and my company [Hamilton Management Group]," Hamilton said. "I never submitted an invoice in 2007, 2008 or 2009. He paid up after we split in 2010. He still maintained to pay HMG half a million pounds a year until 2012."
 
 
http://www.telegraph...ourt-claim.html

I think the reason it's mentioned is because it was the money LH allegedly wanted to to gift his father with which the latter intended to finance that energy drinks deal.

Isn't that promised payment separate to the actual payments now being mentioned? 

Isn't that promised payment separate to the actual payments now being mentioned? 

Sure, but once a specific payment  from A to B has been classified as relevant to the case it's not a big step to mention other payments between the same parties. Especially not if party B has sort of volunteered to give (allegedly wrong) information about other payments between him and party A.

[A.] Hamilton ... claimed last Thursday that he had never received any money or accepted gifts from his son, whose career he managed until their split in 2010.

 

then later:

“I completely forgot there was a [management] agreement between Lewis’ company and my company [Hamilton Management Group],” Hamilton explained.

 

To me that sounds like it was A. Hamilton himself who broadened to scope to any kind of payment he may or may not have received from his son.

I would imagine he is just clearing up any possible misperceptions (about Lewis) arising from his previous statements. These transactions with Lewis are not relevant to the present case at all as far as I can see. There is no reason why they would have needed to be mentioned.

It's relevant in as much as it shows his level of honesty. Forgot about a half million pound a year payment my a***.

Given that a big bag of cash/big sponsorship deal appears to have become the predominant factor in getting a seat, you cannot really condemn the driver for pursuing the option.

Had he had a better season than the likes of Hulkenberg, Perez & Massa, I suspect and funding would have been secondary. ALL the really good "paid for" drivers seem to secure seats. Its when a driver is in the market without budget, against one with budget of similar class, it becomes THE issue. 

Given that a big bag of cash/big sponsorship deal appears to have become the predominant factor in getting a seat, you cannot really condemn the driver for pursuing the option.

No money and he didn't deliever any results. 

3 full seasons are more than better driver got in the past.

Edited by krea, 10 December 2013 - 13:27.

I would imagine he is just clearing up any possible misperceptions (about Lewis) arising from his previous statements. These transactions with Lewis are not relevant to the present case at all as far as I can see. There is no reason why they would have needed to be mentioned.

If you've got a witness who is prepared to talk a lot of BS under questioning, under oath, and who is seemingly incapable of giving a straight and truthful answer, then it pays to question him on as broad a variety of topics as possible. Every time you can get him to say something that turns out to be wrong, it goes to his credibility. Maybe the strategy is to convince the judges that he is full of sh*t...

Edited by redreni, 10 December 2013 - 13:40.

 Every time you can get him to say something that turns out to be wrong, it goes to his credibility. Maybe the strategy is to convince the judges that he is full of sh*t...

Doesn't sound like this is proving particuarly hard to do...

Sure, but once a specific payment  from A to B has been classified as relevant to the case it's not a big step to mention other payments between the same parties. Especially not if party B has sort of volunteered to give (allegedly wrong) information about other payments between him and party A.

 

 

then later:

 

 

To me that sounds like it was A. Hamilton himself who broadened to scope to any kind of payment he may or may not have received from his son.

Did he explicitly say that he had never received any payment from Lewis? If so, then he certainly did need to correct the record. I can't imagine why he would say that, since it was completely beside the point as far as this case is concerned.

I'm not defending him, by the way. His conduct of this case seems very messy.

This case is so confusing but I *think* the version of events as presented Anthony Hamilton goes something like this: company approaches AH offering some deal for PdR which will eventually apparently yield PdR huge sums of money. For some reason, the deal requires investment from AH to happen and he agrees, planning to use £3 million that he believed he was due to receive from Lewis. Then he initially claimed he never received the money from Lewis after all and so the deal collapsed. That was the initial significance of the Lewis money. Then he was seemingly obliged to correct the record to say actually he did receive those millions after all but forgot. (Happens to us all, I'm sure.) Matters are muddied further by AH's claims in court that he believes the initial deal was going to turn out to be a scam anyway but he was obliged to pursue it just in case it turned out to be on the level.

I don't understand the supposed significance of the emails/missing blackberries and what impact they may have had on things though, beyond the obvious questions being raised in court about AH's honesty.

With you so far (I think). Is the issue, then, that DiResta is using this as a reason for not paying Anthony some moneys thought to be owed?

With you so far (I think). Is the issue, then, that DiResta is using this as a reason for not paying Anthony some moneys thought to be owed?

I'm still confused over whether the deal even happened

I'm still confused over whether the deal even happened

Ha! That one at least seems easy to answer - it didn't!

Force India's Scottish driver claiming that he was misled over a multi-million pound deal with an energy drinks company called Go Fast that ultimately never came to fruition.

 

(http://www.telegraph...a-law-suit.html)

edited to add: the business of whether Lewis paid him the money is a bit more involved than I thought and indeed earlier wrote, and even more confusing. Anthony Hamilton initially claimed he'd never received any money or gifts from Lewis, in the context of the supposed reneged-on gift of £3M. However...

 

Hamilton asked to clarify those comments, telling the court that his company had in fact received half a million pounds a year from his son until the end of the 2012 season, although the money was not paid until after they went their separate ways.

“I completely forgot there was a [management] agreement between Lewis’ company and my company [Hamilton Management Group],” Hamilton explained. “I never submitted an invoice in 2007, 2008 or 2009. He paid up after we split in 2010. He still maintained to pay HMG half a million pounds a year until 2012.”

 

I don't understand UK law with respect to speaking about ongoing legal cases in open forums.  What is the rule there?  In the USA, as long as you are not directly involved in the case, it is open season....

In any case, based on what I have read so far, it is Anthony Hamilton that appears to be getting the bad press.  I wonder what made him elect court rather than settling out of court...unless one or both sides were firmly unwilling to give an inch.  I guess that is something to be discovered later too in the mysterious court proceedings. 

I don't understand UK law with respect to speaking about ongoing legal cases in open forums.  What is the rule there?  In the USA, as long as you are not directly involved in the case, it is open season....
 
In any case, based on what I have read so far, it is Anthony Hamilton that appears to be getting the bad press.  I wonder what made him elect court rather than settling out of court...unless one or both sides were firmly unwilling to give an inch.  I guess that is something to be discovered later too in the mysterious court proceedings.

That's interesting. Would be quite nice here in the States where high profile cases turn into depressing soap operas on cable news.

I'm still a bit confused about the payments from Lewis. Did Anthony receive one payment of £1.5m and then £500k each year for 3 years? Or was there a lump sum payment of £3m? The latter seems to cast doubt on his statements that he thought the offer to be a scam.

That's interesting. Would be quite nice here in the States where high profile cases turn into depressing soap operas on cable news.

 

I'm still a bit confused about the payments from Lewis. Did Anthony receive one payment of £1.5m and then £500k each year for 3 years? Or was there a lump sum payment of £3m? The latter seems to cast doubt on his statements that he thought the offer to be a scam.

I teach journalism at a undergraduate college (or university of professional learning) and every year I deliberate if I should discuss this matter with my students. In the Netherlands, just as in the States, courtcases are almost as bitterly fought on television and in social media as they are in the courtrooms. Sometimes it gets really annoying. Lawyers of pedophiles get death threats, lawyers of proven criminals sing the praise of their 'nice and calm' clients on prime time. 

In the UK, this would be prohibited. One the one hand I would welcome this in the Netherlands, but then there is the chance of misjustice. Take the Guilford Four,  I doubt that they would have been persecuted and convicted if journalists had access and chance to report during their trial.

On the other hand, in the Netherlands, one of the most reported cases was the Kristel Ambrosius case... it got a lot of media-attention... and still the wrong men were convicted...

Edited by Nemo1965, 11 December 2013 - 08:09.

I'm still a bit confused about the payments from Lewis. Did Anthony receive one payment of £1.5m and then [/size]£500k each year for 3 years? Or was there a lump sum payment of [/size]£3m? The latter seems to cast doubt on his statements that he thought the offer to be a scam.[/size]

“I completely forgot there was a [management] agreement between Lewis’ company and my company [Hamilton Management Group],” Hamilton explained. “I never submitted an invoice in 2007, 2008 or 2009. He paid up after we split in 2010. He still maintained to pay HMG half a million pounds a year until 2012.”
Paul Downes QC, di Resta’s counsel, accused Hamilton of having given “totally misleading” evidence last week. “Incorrect,” Hamilton replied. “I personally had not been paid but my company had been paid.”

Di Resta alleges that Hamilton tried to make a profit of €1 million off the back of the deal, which ultimately never came to fruition. It is now the central argument in his defence.

I am amazed, and disappointed, that they couldnt manage to settle this... what a stupid, little, nothing of a dispute.

This whole thing......... makes no sense

It's along the same lines as the articles quoted on the case from the British Press, bourbon. They can report what takes place in court, including details of the cross examinations, but they can't draw their own conclusions as to who might be telling the truth etc. Same for us, really. We can discuss what's said in court, but we shouldn't be giving our views on who should win the case and/or why.

I don't see why not. We are not involved in the case so nothing we say is going to influence the proceedings.

Edited by Clatter, 11 December 2013 - 10:59.

I don't see why not. We are not involved in the case so nothing we say is going to influence the proceedings.

And the case takes another twist.

Anthony Hamilton makes dramatic return to witness box in case against former client Paul di Resta

Anthony Hamilton's damages lawsuit against Scottish driver Paul di Resta takes a dramatic turn as he tells the High Court that a missing box containing controversial BlackBerry devices mysteriously turned up

 

. . . The trial had been adjourned last Wednesday pending final submissions on Monday and Tuesday of this week. However, the discovery of the controversial missing box, and also of a USB stick which Hamilton said he had found in the loft of his garage two weekends ago, necessitated a return to the stand for another bout of cross-examination.

 

Hamilton had told the court in his initial evidence that a box containing around eight BlackBerry devices, as well as various other bits of equipment including an iPad, had gone missing during a house move earlier this year. He said he did not report its loss to the police or to the insurance company as he could "not guarantee whether it had been stolen or thrown away".

 

On Monday Hamilton told the court that the box in question turned up early last Thursday morning in a "disused letterbox" that had been detached from its normal position and left "in the middle of the footpath" by his back gates. He added that he had found the USB stick, which contained the digital back-up to one of his BlackBerrys, during a search of his home two weekends ago.

 

. . . 

 

"There were eight BlackBerrys [that went missing] but only three have been returned," he said. "So the thief has seen the press coverage and has thought they will return the exact devices [that were relevant]? That is your theory?"

 

Hamilton was followed into the stand by another surprise witness, Mr Lee Banks, who is overseeing the installation of a state-of-the-art security system at Hamilton's new home in Tewin, Hertfordshire.

 

Around 110 CCTV cameras have been installed by Banks and his team, although none of them point at the back gates.

Hamilton claims that Banks had unfettered access to his iPad during the time of his separation with di Resta at the start of last year and regularly changed the times and dates on it.

Wait. He has 110 cameras on his property?

...but none of them pointing at the back gates..

Hamilton really isn't coming across very well in all this is he?  If the Blackberry's show him to be innocent in this, then all very well but it will leave a cloud over all of his business arrangements that will be difficult for him to shift.

Must be quite a big one.

brilliant just brilliant..............

And the case takes another twist.

What a biased report ...

That's interesting. Would be quite nice here in the States where high profile cases turn into depressing soap operas on cable news.

This bulletin board was originally based in The States (Austin, IIRC), until bought out by Autosport 7or so years ago.

This bulletin board was originally based in The States (Austin, IIRC), until bought out by Autosport 7or so years ago.

Hah! But the thing about British law is that a lot of crooked bastards controversial entrepeneurs used British laws to silence journalists from everywhere in the English speaking world...

Wait. He has 110 cameras on his property?

This is why I love F1. Some of the things that happen outside the track is pure soap opera and entertainment. 

Why had he got all those Blackberries?  How many does one man need?  Even the most pretentious and shallow a***holes that I have had the misfortune to meet only had three devices with them.

Wait. He has 110 cameras on his property?

It does read like that, doesn't it? But I think it's saying how the company has a lot of general experience in installing the cameras for many different people (110 installed), and that not setting up cameras to film the back of the properties is the norm for them, so the absence of a CCTV for the back of the house in this case is not necessarily significant.

I *think* that's what's being said!

Why had he got all those Blackberries?  How many does one man need?  Even the most pretentious and shallow a***holes that I have had the misfortune to meet only had three devices with them.

I took it to mean upgrades over the years. Though Blackberries don't tend to have the features or the same hype as iPhones so the "omg gotta have the new one!" shouldn't exist.

Why had he got all those Blackberries?  How many does one man need?  Even the most pretentious and shallow a***holes that I have had the misfortune to meet only had three devices with them.

He obviously talks a lot on the phone. 

It does read like that, doesn't it? But I think it's saying how the company has a lot of general experience in installing the cameras for many different people (110 installed), and that not setting up cameras to film the back of the properties is the norm for them, so the absence of a CCTV for the back of the house in this case is not necessarily significant.

 

I *think* that's what's being said!

That's a handy thing to know if your a burglar.

That's a handy thing to know if your a burglar.

Now see that would just be unsporting.

(And yes, every possible answer to a question in this odd case only seems to generate further questions.)

Why had he got all those Blackberries?  How many does one man need?  Even the most pretentious and shallow a***holes that I have had the misfortune to meet only had three devices with them.

I did know a chap who had multiple BB's for, ummm, "work", however he was in a rather different kind of business, and is now living at Her Majesty's pleasure...

You know, when I first read about this court case I thought it would hurt Di Resta's career more than that of Anthony Hamilton. I was wrong, I was completely wrong. Every detail that comes out shows how incredible talented Lewis Hamilton must be. To imagine: making F1 and making it big despite having this Anthony as your manager and mentor.

My word!

You know, when I first read about this court case I thought it would hurt Di Resta's career more than that of Anthony Hamilton. I was wrong, I was completely wrong. Every detail that comes out shows how incredible talented Lewis Hamilton must be. To imagine: making F1 and making it big despite having this Anthony as your manager and mentor.

My word!

It certainly gets me thinking about when Lewis nearly left McLaren 04/05

Well in 2007 it was clear that he was a complete nutjob wasn't it? In fact Hamilton's behaviour seems to have improved over the years as he distanced himself from his dad.

Back then he looked just... naive. And clumsy. But the courtcase shows him to both clumsy and immoral...

Some of the more contentious comments from the opposing closing speeches.

"The questioning was incredibly intrusive with regard to his personal life, his tax affairs, his relationship with his son, his father, his late sister. It was superficially impressive but whatever Mr Hamilton said he couldn’t win.”

“Hamilton was cross-examined for three full days,” Hollander said. “And it was nothing if not hostile.

“Your Ladyship has got to approach his evidence with such caution,” he said. “It must be corroborated. If it is controversial it must be disregarded. That is the sort of person we are dealing with here. It [Hamilton’s evidence] comes with a massive health warning.”

Downes added that Hamilton repeatedly “avoided questions and argued” during his cross-examination, describing his version of events regarding the Go Fast deal as “bonkers”.

http://www.telegraph...mages-case.html

I think Anthony Hamilton may well regret bringing this case, in fact i kind of wonder whether he didn't anticipate Di Resta contesting it.