Emil O. W. Kirkegaard (now named William Engman) is a vexatious litigant, perjurer, and internet harasser who I have filed contempt and harassment proceedings against (Smith v Kirkegaard, CA-2023-002246, KB-2024-000772). Kirkegaard owes me £50,4601 in legal costs, after losing a frivolous libel lawsuit (Kirkegaard v Smith, QB-2018-00390) but refuses to pay the judgment debt; a summary of the lawsuit can be read here. A noncompliant debtor, he has breached multiple costs orders and evades bailiffs by moving addresses, as well as legally changing his name.2 The debt enforcement is now a criminal matter since Kirkegaard failed to attend a court summons (with a penal notice) issued by Københavns Byret.3 You can donate to my legal costs (I am currently a litigant in person in England) by sending me a cheque4/cash in the post, or via PayPal.
Legal Updates
Kirkegaard v Smith (QB-2018-00390)
| Legal Document | Date | Notes | URL | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Application | In progess | Application for order that debtor attend court for questioning. | ||
| Notice | 20.03.2024 | Notice by Københavns Byret. | 📂 | |
| Summons | 13.03.2024 | Published in the Danish goverment gazette Statstidende. | 🌐 | 📂 |
| Application | 13.02.2024 | Bailiff requisition. | 📂 | |
| Order | 15.12.2023 | Garnishee Order.5 | 📂 | |
| Notice | 10.10.2023 | Service by publication of Article 53, Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012 in Amtsgericht Kiel under German Commercial Code (Section 15a). | 📂 | |
| Application | 27.03.2023 | Application for enforcement action (Germany).6 | 📂 | |
| Letter | 22.11.2022 | Letter from Foreign Process Section. | 📂 | |
| Certificate (Ger) | 18.11.2022 | Annex I Certificate under Article 53, Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012. | 📂 | |
| Letter | 12.09.2022 | Letter before claim (Denmark).7 | 📂 | |
| Letter | 28.07.2022 | Letter from Foreign Process Section. | 📂 | |
| Certificate (DK) | 27.07.2022 | Annex I Certificate under Article 53, Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012. | 📂 | |
| Writ | 01.07.2022 | Writ of Control (on order for costs).8 | 📂 | |
| Order | 28.09.2021 | Final Costs Certificate. | 📂 | |
| Letter | 08.09.2021 | Letter to Senior Courts Costs Office.9 | 📂 | |
| Letter | 15.09.2020 | Letter warning enforcement action. | 📂 | |
| Notice | 21.05.2020 | Notice of Discontinuance. Emil Kirkegaard discontinues his claim. | 📂 | |
| Letter | 11.05.2020 | Settlement agreement offer. | 📂 | |
| Application | 29.04.2020 | Application for summary judgment.10 | 📂 | |
| Letter | 09.04.2020 | Letter on unless order.11 | 📂 | |
| Order | 10.03.2020 | Interim costs order. | 📂 | |
| Judgment | 11.12.2019 | Kirkegaard v Smith [2019] EWHC 3393 (QB). Emil Kirkegaard lost the preliminary issues trial.12 | 🌐 | 📂 |
| Letter | 04.12.2019 | Letter on draft judgment. | 📂 | |
| Letter | 05.06.2019 | Settlement agreement offer.13 | 📂 | |
| Order | 13.02.2019 | Consent Order (on preliminary issues trial).14 | 📂 | |
| Letter | 08.02.2019 | Letter on preliminary issues trial. | 📂 | |
| Notice | 23.12.2018 | Acknowledgement of service.15 | 📂 |
The solicitors’ who represented me in England (Keidan Harrison) published the following statement:16
Emil Kirkegaard (out of humiliation) rejected to post the following mutual statement on his blog:
Following a trial of meaning and fact/opinion as preliminary issues in a defamation claim brought by the Claimant, Emil Kirkegaard, against Oliver Smith, the Defendant, and the decision of the England and Wales High Court (Queen’s Bench Division) on 11 December 2019 in favour of the Defendant, the Claimant has withdrawn his claim against the Defendant by consent and agreed to pay the Defendant’s legal costs as Ordered by the Court, together with an additional payment for costs as agreed between the Parties.
Smith v Kirkegaard (CA-2023-002246)
| Legal Document | Date | Notes | URL | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Smith v Kirkegaard (KB-2024-000772)
| Legal Document | Date | Notes | URL | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Smith v Debenhams Ottaway (LO-2021-D006522)
The Legal Ombudsman upheld my complaint against Debenhams Ottaway. I was reimbursed £13,403.60, as well as awarded compensation. My complaint was based on an adjournment of a hearing in May 2019 because of procedural error.17 The decision data as a CSV file can be downloaded here (see 349/D006522).
Notes
- This amount was last calculated on 13.02.2024 and these costs are accruing post-judgment interest at 8% per annum under the Judgments Act 1838, §17. I have until 2027 to collect the judgment debt under Limitation Act 1980, §24. ↩︎
- Emil Kirkegaard changed his name to William Engman on 01.05.2021. ↩︎
- He was summoned to attend a hearing at Nordea Bank Danmark’s headquarters since I applied for a bailiff requisition against his bank account but he closed it on 15.03.2024, which had 37,000 DKK (£4,240). He likely has moved most, if not all, his bank savings to cryptocurrencies to prevent me (as a creditor), seizing them, by a third party debt order. ↩︎
- Make the cheque out to ‘Oliver Smith’. ↩︎
- There was a delay on obtaining the garnishment. I had to get a German translation of the English costs orders and the District Court of Kiel (Amtsgericht Kiel) required permission from the Regional Court of Kiel (Landgericht Kiel) since the debt exceeds €5000. Although Kirkegaard moved from his Kiel address to evade, I managed to serve him through his company Gesellschaft für Deutsch-Dänischen Wissenstransfer UG. Information about the company in the Amtsgericht Keil (HRB 23288 KI) can be read here. I have informed a court-appointed bailiff (Gerichtsvollzieher). In January 2024, Kirkegaard was rumoured to be residing in Potsdam on the premises of Villa Adlon (Landhaus Adlon) in a guest house but has probably since moved. The garnishee order is subject to a 30-year limitation period (pursuant to Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch). I further expect compulsory dissolution of his company for failing to comply with legal requirements. ↩︎
- I applied for enforcement action in the Amtsgericht Kiel since Kirkegaard relocated from Denmark to Kiel, Germany. This is confirmed by public data records from the registration authorities’ database (schleswig-holstein.de). I hired an attorney who specialises in debt collection (advoprax AG) and used the service of a debt collection company (Evocate Inkasso GmbH) to send him a dunning notice (Mahnbescheid). He deregistered from the Kiel address in July 2023. ↩︎
- While the UK is no longer an EU member state, the Brussels I Regulation (recast) still continues to apply to enforcing judgments and costs orders in England and Wales legal proceedings in other member states which started on/before 31.12.2020; meaning before the end of the transition period (Article 67, §2(a) of the Withdrawal Agreement). Danish Law No. 518 of 28.05.2013 implemented Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012. I started enforcement proceedings against Emil Kirkegaard by hiring an attorney in Denmark, who specialises in debt collection (Fabritius Tengnagel & Heine). ↩︎
- I obtained a Writ of Control (on order for costs) and registered Kirkegaard as a debtor on the Registry of Judgments, Orders and Fines in England and Wales which can record foreign addresses; he is listed on debt registry for 6 years. ↩︎
- Kirkegaard lost the provisional assessment of costs on paper. I was awarded £19,317.52 (84% bill of costs). He did not appeal the decision by a costs judge. I was awarded £1,500 + VAT plus court fees (Civil Procedure Rules, §47.15(5)). ↩︎
- I applied for summary judgment under Civil Procedure Rules, §24.3. ↩︎
- Emil Kirkegaard breached the interim costs order by failing to pay, so I have applied for an unless order to dismiss the claim because of his misconduct under Civil Procedure Rules, §3.7. Kirkegaard varied the costs order (to pay monthly installments of £500) but never paid. He has been unresponsive to emails sent by my solicitor about non-payment. ↩︎
- The judge was unequivocal: “I reject the Claimant’s submissions and accept the Defendant’s submissions” (Kirkegaard v Smith, supra [57]). All my posts were ruled to be opinions, not statements of fact; which supports my honest opinion defence under the Defamation Act 2013 (Section 3). This statute replaced the common law defence of fair comment. There is also the fact the judge accepted my meanings for the posts while rejecting Kirkegaard’s. The judge criticised him for quoting my posts out of context by ignoring hyperlinked material which provided the basis of my opinions: “It is artificial for the Claimant [Emil Kirkegaard] to take a single sentence out of context” (Kirkegaard v Smith, supra [63]). The judge emphasised that the whole context of my posts (including hyperlinks) should be taken into consideration to determine the meaning of my posts; namely citing Greenstein v Campaign Against Antisemitism [2019] EHWC 281 (QB) [18]: “Where hyperlinks are provided in an online article, there is no reason to exclude that contextual material.” Since the meanings of all my posts are less severe than what Kirkegaard falsely pleaded in his PoC, it is unlikely they caused him serious harm under the Defamation Act 2013 (Section 1). I have requested he discontinues his meritless claim. ↩︎
- I offered Kirkegaard a reasonable settlement agreement: if he discontinues his claim both parties can agree to remove all statements about each other online and will not further publish comments about each other on social media, blogs and other websites. If this offer is not accepted, I will prepare a skeleton argument for the preliminary issues trial and I plan to file a counterclaim by my solicitor for harassment, defamation and breach of the Data Protection Act 1998. ↩︎
- A preliminary issues trial will determine: (1), the “natural and ordinary meanings” (in other words, what a hypothetical reasonable reader would understand the words in my posts to mean), (2) whether my posts are expression of opinion, or statements of fact and, (3) whether defamatory imputations (under common law) are conveyed by the meanings of the posts. We disagree on all three of these issues. Furthermore, I have applied to strike out part of the claim. This was based on a post I made on social media (Twitter). Kirkegaard did not show analytical data for extent of publication. ↩︎
- Emil Kirkegaard filed a defamation lawsuit against me in the High Court of Justice (QBD) on 07.12.2018, but I did not recieve his claim form or particulars of claim until a few days later; I have complied with the 14-day deadline to file an acknowledgement of service. I am defending all the claim. Kirkegaard’s lawsuit is frivolous and appears solely to have been filed, to harass and subdue me, as an adversary (rather than having a realistic prospect of success). The problem with his PoC is he pleads inacccurate meanings of my posts and thus distorts their true meanings by contextomies. ↩︎
- This refutes misleading statements Emil Kirkegaard has written about the outcome. ↩︎
- The adjournment was mentioned in the preliminary judgment (Smith v Kirkegaard, supra [9]): “A hearing took place on 22 May 2019 in which, due to procedural issues, the trail was relisted for 26 November 2019.” I was reimbursed costs spent on the hearing by Debenhams Ottaway and I later hired another law firm (Keiden Harrison) to represent me. ↩︎
Oliver D. Smith 