Moreover, this version of the plaintiff was supported - apart from her testimony - by an e-mail message sent by the plaintiff on April 8, 2016 (P/7) to Stephen Collins. In the same statement, the plaintiff wrote to Collins:
"when we did the trading for Volume you told me not to worry as the sessions were registered and all money Would be replaced in the account, I have never seen it replaced...
The 100,000 of my inheritance which I put in the account only 2 weeks ago is now down to 17$K USD with consistently poor trades. I know there is a risk with Trading but your Analysts is supplying you with consistently poor trades.
The oil packes obviously were disappointment, I wish I hadn't done them and as I told you I was emptying the accounts out to do them I did that on the basis they were short term trades and the money would be back in the account by 21 March. The trades did not work and I accept the risk but what troubles me is that you didn't tell me that they lost and left me believe that there would be the spending spree money coming we talked about and I foolishly committed to purchases based on that info. So I am hoeing 17K GBP to my mums account I can't pay
I know you have worked hard for me but I am worse off my debts massive and can't continue like this.
Please give some thought to how we can improve the situation. I don't want to close the account but I am very worried about it. I have gone backwards financially and can't continue to do so.
The fact the inheritance money I put has been wiped out really upset me. "
This statement reflects the core of the plaintiff's version, according to which the recommendation to conduct high-volume transactions was given by Collins, who presented her with a representation that her money would be refunded. In the statement, the plaintiff confirms that she knew these were risky deals, but she subsequently claims to Collins that the company's analysts consistently give poor recommendations. This correspondence strengthens the plaintiff's claims that she relied on the recommendations of the company's alleged "analysts". There is also a reflection in the email that Collins presented the plaintiff with a representation that he was working hard for her. In contrast to these, Avisror testified that his entire role was limited to customer retention, that is, according to his testimony - to make sure that all of the customer's needs were met, that his platform was working and that he received market updates (see his testimony on page 91, lines 19-27). In light of this testimony of Avisror Aksha - if the entire job of the company's employees is to instruct customers on how to make the technical investment and they do not recommend to the customers what to invest in - why did the plaintiff write to Collins that he had committed to hard work before her?!. The plaintiff also asks Collins to think about how the situation can be improved - and in this context I will also ask - if the role of the company's employees is a kind of "technical support" - why should the employee think about how the situation can be improved for the plaintiff and why is this reflected by the plaintiff that was presented to her?! Finally, I am of the opinion that the very sending of the e-mail message is sufficient to indicate the obligation that the plaintiff believed that Collins had towards her - an obligation that supports her claims that she trusted him and relied on his recommendations.