London Lawyer Philip Simon Landau, Director of Landau Law, will not even communicate with former client SDK before complaining to TrustPilot.
Would finding out that Landau Law will accept bribes and defraud a client influence a potential customers decision?
Landau Law should be able to address allegations of wrong-doing in a professional way. TrustPilot should not weigh in and remove honest, credible, albeit bad customer experiences.
Landau Law
Companies House Company Number 08876494
Saint Clare House
30-33 Minories
London
EC3N 1DD
United Kingdom (UK)
RE: Landau Law Defamation of Steven Kalavity (SDK) through flagging / submitting false claim / report to TrustPilot
2 October 2021 SDK Testimonial on Landau Law
8 June 2019 SDK Testimonial on Landau Law
NOPGS.COM Content October 2018
ATTN: Philip Simon Landau, Landau Law Director
Landau Law,
On 2 October 2021 Landau Law flagged a Trustpilot review written by SDK which related a truthful testimonial of a former client. Landau Law stated that the testimonial contained illegal or harmful content.
TrustPilot: Landau Law flagged this because it contains harmful or illegal content.
Landau Law does not specify what content published within the testimonial is harmful or illegal because there is no content within the published testimonial content which is untrue or illegal! Landau Law knows this.
Philip Simon Landau is an expert in UK employment law and drafting settlement contracts. Philip Simon Landau advised SDK on an employment termination settlement contract (the “Settlement”) processed under Watson Farley & Williams reference 49976848v5 which ended his employment with PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, 4 The Heights, Weybridge, England, KT13 0NY.
Landau Law is lying to TrustPilot and falsely accusing SDK of harmful and/or illegal behavior. This is defamation. It is also a breach in the Confidentiality terms and conditions of the Settlement:
9.4 The Employee agrees neither to make nor publish, nor cause to be made or published, to anyone in any circumstances any statement (whether of fact, belief, or opinion) which directly or indirectly disparages, is harmful to or damages the reputation or standing of the Company [PGS Exploration (UK) Limited] or any Group Company or any Related Party.
9.6 Nothing in this Clause 9 shall prevent the Employee [SDK] from disclosing information which he is entitled to disclose under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, provided that the disclosure is made in accordance to the provisions of that Act and the Employee has complied with the Company’s policy from time to time regarding such disclosure.
9.7 In consideration for the obligations entered into by the Employee [SDK] in this Clause 9, the Company [PGS Exploration (UK) Limited] agrees to make reasonable efforts:
(a) neither to make nor publish, no cause to be made or published, to anyone in any circumstances any statement (whether of fact, belief or opinion) which directly or indirectly disparages, is harmful to or damages the reputation or standing of the Employee (save as may be required by law or regulation), nor to represent the Employee as an authorized agent/employee or otherwise of the Company once his employment has ended; and
(b) to keep the existence and terms of this Agreement [Settlement] and the circumstances giving rise to its making confidential and not to disclose, communicate or otherwise make public these terms to any third party save and except as required by law or regulation, or in confidence to its professional advisers.
Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998:
Workers are to be protected when the public disclosure consists of information where the worker reasonably believes that there has been a criminal offence, breach of a legal obligation, a miscarriage of justice, a danger to the health and safety of any individual, damage to the environment, or a deliberate attempt to conceal such acts.
43J Any provision in an agreement to which this section applies is void in so far as it purports to preclude the worker from making a protected disclosure.
The UK Limitation Act 1980:
The time limit for actions for defamation or malicious falsehood. The time limit under section 2 of this Act shall not apply to an action for (a)libel or slander, or (b)slander of title, slander of goods or other malicious falsehood, but no such action shall be brought after the expiration of one year from the date on which the cause of action occurred.
Landau Law is actively trying to deceive TrustPilot users. Isn’t this exactly what TrustPilot should not allow? TrustPilot testimonials should first and foremost be truthful and accurate. If TrustPilot removes honest testimonials of a bad customer experience with a business, then there is no point to TrustPilot. Perhaps TrustPilot users would shy away from businesses who accept bribes to defraud their clients.
Landau Law had never even contacted SDK prior to complaining directly to TrustPilot. This silence and lack of engagement is what infuriates SDK the most. It is unprofessional, to say the least. When voicing grievances, the system encourages parties to work it out between themselves before involving a third-party. Landau Law has both the email used by SDK to register on TrustPilot as well as the email used when SDK actually was a client of Principal Philip Simon Landau. Both are checked regularly.
Let’s start with the title and lead of the recent SDK Landau Law testimonial: Philip Landau is an accused criminal. In fact, SDK has accused Philip Simon Landau of being a criminal within several online published blog articles. The first article that actually named the accused in the article title, My Philip Landau and Watson, Farley & Williams (WFW) London Solicitors Testimonial was first published on website nopgs.com on 8 November 2016 and then updated/revised on 9 April 2017. Watson Farley & Williams represented SDKs former employer, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited. Thus, a clear breach of the Settlement that Philip Simon Landau advised on.
SDKs central claim is that Philip Simon Landau and his assistant Holly Hobson (formally Holly Rushton), as paid legal advisors to SDK, accepted bribes and conspired to deceive client SDK into signing an illegal Settlement supported by uttered forged and defamatory personnel file records to defame (blacklist from work in the industry) and defraud client SDK. These are crimes. The article and allegations made within it are legally and contractually protected public disclosure, or whistleblowing. The article and allegations are not a breach of any legal Settlement under the laws of England, where Philip Simon Landau and Holly Hobson are licensed to practice employment law.
PGS Exploration (UK) Limited, Watson Farley & Williams, and Philip Simon Landau and Holly Hobson never cited the article as a breach of the Settlement or defamatory within the one-year period that the UK Limitation Act 1980 allows since the Settlement is governed by the laws of England.
SDK published, The Crimes of @Philiplandau and #London #EmploymentLaw #Solicitor and Petroleum Geo-Services #PGS #CEO #Pedersen on nopgs.com 30 December 2017. The links to the article along with image files were shared on the Twitter social media platform. Landau did not complain directly but blocked his former client’s tweets. Philip Simon Landau was clearly aware of the content of the linked publications which has never differed much from other articles.
In September 2018, PGS Exploration (UK) Limited and (former) Company Secretary, Carl Richards, filed two claims against SDK citing Thailand law for criminal defamation. There had never been a cited breach in the Settlement. The claims reference only statements from My Philip Landau and Watson, Farley & Williams (WFW) London Solicitors Testimonial which was published over a year before that the Limitation Act 1980 dictates. The publication of these claims is also a breach of Clause 9.7 in the Settlement. SDK considered the Thai claims delivered by Thai law firm, Duensing – Kippen to be illegal blackmail / extortion to silence the truth.
During the legal process of dealing with the PGS Exploration (UK) Limited and (former) Company Secretary, Carl Richards nopgs.com was stolen and evidence – posted blog articles and image, files – were destroyed. The Settlement was never employed, but rather intentionally averted.
The entire point of a Settlement is to constrain parties from taking actions which are not prescribed by its terms and conditions. PGS Exploration (UK) Limited and (former) Company Secretary, Carl Richards, Watson Farley & Williams, along with Philip Simon Landau and Holly Hobson have breached the Settlement. SDK believes that this is because the Settlement is not a legal instrument, but rather an illegal device employed through criminal conspiracy to defraud, defame, and blacklist a whistleblower.
If SDK is wrong, the test is to use the avenues of redress prescribed within the Settlement and not complain to a third-party, such as TrustPilot.
TrustPilot needs to demand that Landau Law employ the Settlement to de-publish unfavorable testimonials. If TrustPilot does not do this, then they are propagating false and untrustworthy reviews.
Regards,
SDK