Emil Kirkegaard on December 7, 2018, filed a claim form (with a particulars of claim) against me in the High Court of Justice. I was emailed a copy of his claim form and PoC (see below). Kirkegaard filled in his address and described his employment as a “data scientist”. He ticked a box and signed his name under a statement of truth (asserting this information was true). The problem is neither of these claims are true so he lied under oath and committed perjury. The address Kirkegaard filled in on the claim form was not his address where he lives but his parents’ house. Kirkegaard uploaded a curriculum vitae on his blog, naming both his parents: Hanne Marie Kirkegaard and Ole Jan Pedersen. On his OpenPsych website he mentions his parents’ address; a search of the address on a Danish registry of telecommunications reveals his mother lives there (screenshot) as does a different website for a Danish individual search.
Emil Kirkegaard’s claim form (my copy) he filed against me (Kirkegaard v Smith ⚖️) with redacted address.
The false address
In good faith, I formerly blanked the address on my copy of his claim form; there is no reason to do that now – after discovering he publicly posted this address, on his OpenPsych website:
Screenshot of OpenPsych website (image used under §30 Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988).
On September 8, 2021, my solicitor copied this address (Silkeborgvej 53 8800 Viborg) on the final costs certificate. However, I realised one week later, this was not where Kirkegaard lived and he provided a false address to the court. Kirkegaard is the registrant of multiple domains and these reveal he lives at a different address.* A search of this address shows he purchased the house in October 2017. In other words, there is incontrovertible evidence he’s lied under oath and given a false address. By the time I raised this issue with my solicitor – Kirkegaard was pro se (he filed a notice of change on September 7, 2021) and Samuels Solicitors were no longer acting on his behalf. It remains unclear if Kirkegaard’s solicitor dropped him as a bad client or vice-versa; it is possible he is a debtor to Samuels Solicitors because of unpaid bills. I am a creditor suing him to enforce a judgment debt of £42,749.67 (Smith v Kirkegaard ⚖️).
*The Danish civil registry can presumably confirm whether he still lives at this address.
Emil Kirkegaard’s dubious claim to be a scientist
Kirkegaard on his claim form and PoC described himself as a “data scientist” (Kirkegaard v Smith  EWHC 3393 (QB) ). This description is dubious at best. Kirkegaard is not a scientist by qualification (he only holds a BA in linguistics). In 2016, his alma mater on their Twitter profile published a statement: “Emil Kirkegaard – he is not a scientist”. Kirkegaard was further told to remove an untrue description of his job as a scientist. At the same time, Kirkegaard by his own admission was unemployed. His LinkedIn profile (screenshot) lists his employment from February 2019, to present, as a freelance data scientist and he now claims to work from home. There is, however, zero evidence for any of this. The information on his LinkedIn profile contradicts what he told the court; his LinkedIn profile claims he’s had a job since February 2019 but he told the court he was employed (as a scientist) in December 2018.
Kirkegaard tells so many lies, he usually slips up. He disclosed to the court to have an annual salary of £72,000.00 with undisclosed bank savings, yet when he was ordered to pay me back £13,500.00 in legal costs – he amended the order to pay only £500.00 a month, claiming he could not make the payment as a lump sum. For failure to pay the costs order (he missed the first installment), I applied for an unless order to get the frivolous lawsuit dismissed because of his noncompliance and gross misconduct. Suspiciously, 11 days before a hearing (on June 2, 2020) in which he would have had to provide proof of his employment history and disclose his bank savings, he discontinued. On his LinkenIn profile, Kirkegaard does not mention any specific company he has worked for as a scientist. It is most likely an inaccurate CV seeming as he has been caught out lying about his employment as well as exaggerating his credentials.