New Capital Link: A Case Study in How Not to Do Pre-Action Correspondence

Regular readers of this blog will already be familiar with New Capital Link, its associates, and the issues raised in our previous reporting. Those articles examined corporate structures, public representations, and the backgrounds of individuals connected with matters we considered firmly in the public interest.

For readers who want the broader context, our previous reporting on New Capital Link, Rachel Buscall, and convicted fraudster James Baird remains available here

In that context, we expected any response from New Capital Link to follow a familiar path. A professionally drafted pre-action letter. Careful wording. Clear legal grounding. A document shaped as much by risk awareness as by intention.

What we did not expect was to be handed a case study.

Although styled as pre-action correspondence, the letter we received bears none of the usual hallmarks of solicitor-led legal communication. It does not read as a document written to clarify issues, narrow disputes, or prepare the ground for litigation. Instead, it reads as a narrative assembled at client level, built around conjecture, inference, and reconstructed meaning rather than legal analysis.

That distinction matters. Pre-action correspondence is not a formality. It is often the first document a court will scrutinise when assessing conduct, credibility, and proportionality. Its structure, tone, and evidential discipline are not cosmetic. They are fundamental.

In this instance, those fundamentals are absent…

Rather than advancing a clear legal position supported by evidence, the letter relies on emotive framing and selective interpretation of events. Assertions are made without the accompanying precision one would expect from correspondence drafted with litigation risk in mind. Internal inconsistencies are left unresolved. Points are raised rhetorically rather than tested legally.

These features are not accidental. They are typical of correspondence that is client-led rather than solicitor-led. Experienced legal practitioners tend to strip language back, not dress it up. They narrow issues rather than expand them. They avoid speculation because speculation weakens position. When those disciplines are missing, it is usually because the document is being driven by narrative instinct rather than legal strategy.

This blog explains four things…

First, why the letter is fundamentally flawed as pre-action correspondence.

Second, how it conflicts with its own evidence and internal logic.

Third, why its structure and tone strongly suggest it was shaped at client level rather than controlled by legal advisers.

And fourth, how each of these issues was set out clearly and formally in our response.

The Letter That Wanted to Be a Legal Letter

On 27 November 2025, we received a document sent under the Cohen Davis letterhead. It presented itself as a legal letter, styled as a pre action communication. At first glance, it carried the expected trappings: a formal layout, annexes, and repeated references to defamation and harassment law.

What it lacked was something more fundamental. Compliance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Media and Communications Claims.

That protocol exists for a reason. It demands clarity, precision, and discipline. It is designed to narrow disputes, identify the issues, and avoid unnecessary litigation. The letter we received did none of those things. Instead, it read less like a solicitor’s attempt to frame a legal dispute and more like an attempt to tell a story. A story that began to unravel the moment its own evidence was examined.

What a Proper Letter of Claim Actually Has to Do

A compliant Letter of Claim must, at minimum:

• identify the specific publications complained of
• set out the exact words alleged to be defamatory
• explain the meanings said to arise from those words
• state why those meanings are false
• explain how serious harm is said to have occurred
• specify the remedy sought

This is not technical pedantry. These are the building blocks of a defamation claim.

The NCL letter did none of this. It did not identify defamatory words or publications nor explain falsity. It did not plead serious harm, and did not articulate a coherent remedy. What it did instead was offer pages of interpretation, emotion, and reconstructed “meanings”, effectively inviting the reader to guess what the complaint might be.

That is not how pre-action correspondence works.

When Your Own Annexes Undermine Your Case

The most striking feature of the letter is that it undermines itself. One of its central allegations is that Ms Rachel Buscall was subjected to “unwanted and alarming” contact. Those are strong words. They do not survive scrutiny of the annexes.

The annexes, supplied by New Capital Link themselves, consist of Ms Buscall’s emails. They show confident and voluntary engagement, detailed explanations, an assertive tone, and proactive follow-ups. There is no indication of reluctance, fear, or pressure.

The documentary evidence therefore demonstrates the opposite of what the letter asserts.

This matters. Harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 requires conduct that is oppressive and unacceptable, not merely unwelcome or uncomfortable. On the evidence provided, that threshold is nowhere near being met.

If anything, the annexes read not as evidence of harassment but as an active attempt to shape and control a narrative.

A Brief Detour Into “Without Prejudice”

The letter also annexed material clearly marked Without Prejudice and then attempted to rely on it substantively. For readers unfamiliar with the concept, Without Prejudice communications are legally protected precisely so parties can speak freely during settlement discussions. That protection is fundamental. Such material is not evidence, is not part of a pleaded case, and cannot later be deployed to advance a claim.

This is not obscure law or a technical trap. It is one of the first principles any litigator learns. We therefore required confirmation that no further attempt would be made to rely on Without Prejudice material. No such confirmation has been forthcoming.

Meanings, Meanings Everywhere… Except the Actual Words

Another recurring theme in the letter was its enthusiasm for “meanings”. Unfortunately, those meanings were entirely untethered from any pleading words. Rather than identifying the words allegedly said to be defamatory, the letter devoted considerable space to explaining how implications might be inferred, reconstructed, or imagined.

Defamation law does not operate in this way. You do not start with a feeling and work backwards to retrofit words to support it. The words complained of must be identified first. Only then do meanings arise. Without words, there is nothing to litigate, however strongly one may feel about the outcome.

The Second Letter: Louder, Faster, Still Empty

On 12 December 2025, a second letter arrived. The tone had hardened. Deadlines were shorter. Confidence was higher. We were told that a Claim Form and Particulars of Claim were “ready to be filed”. Yet none of the defects identified in our response had been cured.

The second letter still did not identify any defamatory words. It still did not explain how serious harm was said to have occurred. It still relied on invented meanings, and it still failed to engage with the contradictions in its own annexes.

If pleadings genuinely existed, one would expect at least a summary of them. There was none. The escalation was stylistic, not substantive.

Pressure Instead of Pleading

By this stage, a pattern had become clear. Each successive letter increased the sense of urgency, but left the underlying legal foundation unchanged. Assertions multiplied, yet the required particulars never followed.

This is not how litigation ordinarily begins. Proper claims are built on pleaded facts, set out with precision and supported by evidence. What emerged here looked less like a legal process and more like an attempt to apply pressure where the evidence could not carry the argument.

Courts are not persuaded by repetition or volume. They deal in facts.

What This Tells Investors

For investors and prospective investors, this correspondence is revealing, not for what it establishes, but for what it consistently avoids.

When serious, evidence-based questions are raised about a business, the most robust response is usually unremarkable: documents, facts, and clear explanations. That is not what occurred here. Instead, scrutiny was met with procedurally defective legal letters, characterised by assertion rather than particulars, and undermined by the very material annexed in support of them.

This distinction matters. Legal threats are not always instruments of resolution; sometimes they function as tools of deflection. Investors should therefore look beyond tone and ask a simpler question: is the substance being addressed, or is the conversation being redirected towards imagined offences and emotive narrative?

Also notable is what never followed. Where a company repeatedly asserts that claims are imminent, fully pleaded, and ready to be filed, yet no proceedings materialise, investors are entitled to draw their own conclusions. Courts are not persuaded by confidence. They require pleaded facts.

None of this, in isolation, proves wrongdoing. But taken together, it reinforces a familiar principle of due diligence: where transparency gives way to pressure, and evidence to rhetoric, caution is not cynicism….it is common sense.

Context Matters and Readers Already Have It

All of this matters because it sits against the backdrop of our earlier reporting on New Capital Link and associated individuals.

Our investigation into New Capital Link (NCL) has consistently identified serious potential risks for investors. Those concerns deepen further when one considers the background of individuals connected with the firm. Prominently among them is James Muir Baird, who has previously been convicted in relation to a boiler-room investment fraud scheme. Court records and our earlier reporting record admissions to offences including the use of false identities and fraudulent bank accounts in order to target investors.

Despite this history, Baird has been linked to New Capital Link as a business-development figure operating under the name James Harper. The appearance of an individual with a documented conviction for serious financial wrongdoing within NCL’s wider network raises fundamental questions about transparency and investor protection. For anyone considering engagement with NCL or related investments, the involvement of individuals with this background is, in our view, sufficient to justify extreme caution, rigorous independent due diligence, and the taking of legal advice before proceeding.

Earlier Examples

Examples of financial opportunities promoted by New Capital Link have been examined in our earlier reporting, including:

William Jackson’s companies
The Clean Food Growing Company
Ashbrookes Group Limited

What we will say is this: where reporting raises uncomfortable questions, the appropriate response is evidence. Not rhetoric. Not reconstructed meanings. And not procedurally defective letters.

It is also notable that when Insolvency & Law first reported on James Baird acting as James Harper’s representative for New Capital Link, the name James Harper was swiftly removed from the company’s website.

More recently, as new ventures have emerged, including Rachel Buscall’s work in interior design, contact details have again appeared publicly listing Rachel Buscall alongside James Harper.

These are matters of public record. Readers are entitled to draw their own conclusions.

Where Matters Stand

At this point, the position is clear.

No defamatory words have been identified.
No serious harm has been evidenced.
There has been no compliant Letter of Claim served
No proceedings have been issued.

These are not technical oversights. They are the foundations of any genuine legal action. And they are entirely absent.

We remain ready to respond to any properly pleaded claim, should one ever materialise. Until then, we will continue to publish accurate, evidence-based reporting in the public interest, just as we have done throughout our coverage of New Capital Link.

If New Capital Link’s legal position were as strong as its correspondence implies, the path forward would be straightforward and well understood. That path has not been taken. Silence, when coupled with bluster, speaks for itself.

Insolvency & Law will continue to publish fair, evidence-led reporting in the public interest. We do not retreat from scrutiny, and we do not publish lightly.

If you or someone you know has been affected by New Capital Link, Rachel Buscall, James Baird, Billy Jackson, or any other unregulated investment scheme, we urge you to come forward. Your experience matters. Accountability does not begin with legal threats. It begins with facts being brought into the light. Get in touch with us today at: investigations@insolvencyandlaw.co.uk

Disclaimer: 

Insolvency & Law Ltd is not a firm of solicitors or licensed insolvency practitioners. We do not conduct any regulated legal or financial activities as defined under the Legal Services Act 2007 or the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. We do not offer legal advice, financial advice, debt counselling, or conduct of litigation. All blogs, podcasts, reports, and other published content by I&L are provided solely for general information and educational purposes. They should not be interpreted as a substitute for regulated or professional advice and must not be relied upon as such. For matters that require regulated legal or financial advice, we recommend seeking guidance from an appropriately authorised and regulated professional.