I’m delighted that the claim foundered. I would love to see this egregious business pay, but in the meantime, given the inevitable character of the individuals involved, I’m not at all surprised they pursue such claims, or threaten disclosure to get the money. And what of the people writing for them? ‘Need the money’ only goes so far as an excuse.

I’m glad you mention this: it’s horrid. Here’s a little tale.

I sit part-time, and a few months back, faced an entertaining Small Claim trial where an individual, who operated the same odious practice as your subject, was claiming several hundred pounds in unpaid fees. These fees were due from an A-level Business student, the Defendant, for an essay he’d written for her but for which she’d not paid. He operated an internet-based service, which carried the same verbal ordure as Mr Littlehood’s about it not being plagiarism, etc., etc: I was handed the printouts. He said that once the service had been provided, it was up to the student what they wished to do with the product.

Amusingly, the essay in question was about business ethics.

The Defendant turned up accompanied by mum, ironically a teacher by profession. Her defence was that the essay was rubbish, and got her a fail grade. Apparently loads of her friends had used the service, and he had come highly recommended, but he just wasn’t very good at Business essays (apparently he could “do” Law, though). A number of her friends, at her school and at others in the area, had used the service, with mixed results she said. So, her defence was a total failure of consideration based on an absence of reasonably professional (well, that’s the phrase) care and skill.

I couldn’t see how the contract was illegal, and thus void that way. The Claimant was an experienced and tenacious litigator-in-person, the full-time DJ warned me, and he would be sure to appeal any adverse ruling, as he had in relation to other (different) matters on which the DJ had ruled against him in the past. That made my proposed exit route of “voidable due to public policy considerations” seem less tempting. Instead, I seized on the fact that the Defendant was only 17, and could elect to void the contract that way. A little spark of joy flared in my brain.

It took me a good ten minutes to explain this to the Defendant and her Mum, and even then she failed to choose to void the agreement until carefully prompted. Meanwhile, the Claimant simmered. I gave judgment, of the “plague on both your houses” variety which used the words “cheat”, “greedy”, “exploit”, and “amoral” widely but carefully, given that I was in fact basing the ruling on other grounds.

Maybe it was appealed later, I don’t know. But the sheer brass neck of the Claimant suing over this cheat’s conspiracy amazes me even now. I know that a couple of years back, the College of Law faced down a potential Judicial Review claim brought by a number of students who’d been failed in their LSF for plagiarism (or “cheating” as I prefer to call it). They had obviously been copying chunks of text, and swapping it around between themselves. It got as far as Letters of Claim before the protective middle-class parents who were bankrolling the budding little shysters’ cases finally saw sense, and drew back.

I do rather find it tedious that the present government keeps passing yet more laws regulating our behaviour (the ASBO trail, for instance0. But if you were looking for a better example of anti-social behaviour combined with dishonesty than cheating - in a Law or Business qualification, especially - in order to create for yourself a financial advantage potentially worth hundreds of thousands of pounds, and social advancement - then I’m open to your suggestions.

Littlehood and his cohorts will carry on with their malodorous infections until they are hit hard in the pocket. (OK, rant over, but you see what I mean. Love the blog, by the way.)

I used to have a teacher that could spot any copying a mile off!

Words can’t describe what I’d like to do to Mr Littlewood.