27th January 2026

Further Civil Proceedings Update

Palm PR Ltd did not raise any substantive dispute regarding the invoices at the time they were issued or during the months that followed. Solicitors were instructed shortly before the already extended Defence deadline.

Palm PR Ltd requested a further extension of time to file a Defence. That request has not been agreed. The matter will now proceed in accordance with the Civil Procedure Rules and any application for further time will be a matter for the court.

These matters are now before the court and will be resolved through due process.

28th December 2025

Civil Proceedings Update

Palm PR Ltd has formally indicated an intention to defend the claim brought by greyzip Ltd in respect of unpaid invoices for services delivered.

The claim concerns invoices that were raised, and no substantive dispute was raised at the time the invoices were issued or during the months that followed. An intention to defend has been communicated only after formal court proceedings were commenced, and close to the expiry of the standard response period. This is now a matter for the court to determine.

Any matters raised by Palm PR Ltd in those proceedings will be addressed through the court in the ordinary course. Where relevant, factual findings, admissions, or documentary evidence emerging from the civil proceedings may also be relied upon in related legal and regulatory contexts, as permitted by law.

greyzip Ltd continues to pursue recovery of the outstanding sums and reserves all rights to seek appropriate remedies available under civil, regulatory, and statutory frameworks.

This update reflects the current procedural position only and does not prejudge the outcome of the proceedings.

12th December 2025

As of today, additional material has come to light that is directly relevant to the matters under investigation.

This material has been formally provided to Essex Police this evening and is currently subject to review as part of an ongoing criminal investigation.

In order to preserve the integrity of that investigation, this evidence will not be published at this stage. Any further disclosure will be made only after confirmation from law enforcement that doing so would not prejudice proceedings.

This site will continue to be updated responsibly and in accordance with legal advice, with the sole purpose of maintaining an accurate public record.

3rd December 2025

Following the police interview of former Palm PR employee Richard Nyande, I was informed that he has now left Palm PR. While I cannot speculate on his reasons, this development raises important legal considerations that are relevant to the public and to anyone evaluating Palm PR’s conduct.

Under UK law, including the principle of vicarious liability, a company can be held responsible for the acts of an employee if those acts were:

• carried out during the course of employment, or
• done in a way that benefited the business, or
• connected to the employee’s role.

This means that if any unlawful or improper activity took place in connection with the employee’s role at Palm PR, then Palm PR as a company could face legal and regulatory consequences, not just the individual involved.

• This includes matters such as:
• unauthorised access to confidential systems
• misuse of confidential information
• data protection breaches
• interference with business relations
• publishing or distributing defamatory content

These matters are already with the police and relevant regulators, and I will continue to cooperate fully.

When an employee leaves an organisation immediately after police involvement, without serving notice, and without public explanation, this is often treated by investigators as a relevant factor.

To be extremely clear:

I am not alleging why he left.

I am simply noting the factual sequence of events:

• Police executed a court-approved search warrant at his home (July 2025).
• He was interviewed by Essex Police (as confirmed by the investigating officer).
• Shortly afterwards, he is no longer employed by Palm PR.

Such timing is routinely taken into account when police, civil courts, or regulators assess whether a wider pattern of conduct may exist within an organisation.

Because the employee under investigation was acting in a professional role connected to Palm PR at the time events occurred, it is now possible that:

• the actions under investigation may be connected to his work, and
• the company could potentially be legally responsible if wrongdoing was carried out in the course of employment.
• This is why investigators regard patterns, timing, and corporate culture as relevant contextual factors.

To remain absolutely clear and compliant with UK law:

• No conclusion is being drawn.
• No accusation of guilt is being made against any individual or company.

These points reflect general legal principles and public interest considerations regarding employer responsibility.

All matters remain under investigation by Essex Police.

Clients, partners, journalists, and regulators may wish to be aware of these developments because:

• Corporate liability affects a company’s integrity and governance duties.
• It speaks directly to risk management and the ethical standards of leadership.
• It forms part of the public-interest transparency that this website provides.

I will continue to publish factual updates, sourced directly from:

• police communications,
• regulatory correspondence,
• legal documentation,
• public filings, and
• first-hand evidence.

Any verified response from Palm PR or its directors will be published in full.

20th November 2025

These reviews are publicly available on Glassdoor and have been posted by individuals identifying themselves as former employees of Palm PR Ltd.
I make no claim as to the accuracy of the statements made by these reviewers.
They are presented here solely as existing public commentary for transparency and context.
Readers should review the original posts and draw their own conclusions.

19th November 2025

As part of the civil recovery process relating to £15,132 owed to greyzip Ltd, an enforcement agent attended the home of Palm PR’s director, Emily Keogh, on 19th November 2025.

In the agent’s documented report, Ms Keogh:

• Did not dispute the debt,
• Did not provide any evidence that the debt was invalid,
• Claimed she had never seen the invoices (despite written proof of delivery, LBAs etc), and
• Immediately began making unsolicited allegations about me, which the agent described as irrelevant and inappropriate.

The agent stated:

“She was uneasy and asked the agent to keep his voice down… She stated she was being targeted by the other party and went on to make allegations about the other party.”
– Enforcement Report, 19th Nov 2025

Instead of addressing payment of a legitimate commercial debt, Ms Keogh attempted to redirect the conversation by making serious defamatory allegations against me – allegations she did not raise with any regulator, legal authority, accountant, or solicitor prior to enforcement proceedings.

In my opinion, this behaviour suggests a couple of troubling points:

1. Attempting to use serious unverified allegations to avoid a lawful debt

Nothing within UK commercial law permits a director to refuse payment for completed work because of gossip, rumours, or personal views.

The debt remains:

• Contractually valid
• Fully evidenced
• Pursued through correct legal channels

Palm PR has never provided:

• A dispute form
• A counter-invoice
• A formal denial grounded in contract
• Or any written justification for withholding payment

Instead, Ms Keogh appeared to rely on seriously damaging allegations, presented to a third party with no relevance whatsoever to the debt. This raises a serious concern about whether she believes that making false defamatory statements excuses her company from its financial obligations.

2. This behaviour may constitute defamatory communication

The agent’s report describes statements that:

• Were made to a third party,
• Asserted as fact,
• Without evidence,
• And in a context where the false allegation could cause serious reputational harm.

This has now been passed to my legal team for assessment under the Defamation Act 2013, and may be linked to earlier defamatory statements circulated to clients using anonymous email accounts. This interaction was also recorded on video.

Instead of paying the money Palm PR legally owes, or engaging through the proper channels, Ms Keogh appears to believe that making serious false allegations about me excuses her company from meeting its contractual obligations.

Nothing in UK law supports this position.

The debt remains valid.
Enforcement continues.
Her unlawful and troubling comments have no legal bearing on the matter, but they do raise wider questions about her conduct as a company director.

17th November 2025

It is a matter of public record that shortly after being interviewed by police in relation to the unauthorised access to my company’s servers, Richard Nyande left his role at Palm PR. I make no allegation about his motives; I simply note the timing. Investigators routinely consider the behaviour of individuals following formal interview, as sudden departures from the organisation connected to the investigation can indicate concern, internal instability, or an awareness of risks that may not yet be visible externally.

This pattern does not exist in isolation. When viewed alongside coordinated resignations, the movement of confidential client data, and the anonymous defamatory communications sent to my clients, the timing of Mr Nyande’s exit raises serious questions about the internal conduct at Palm PR and who may have been directing or benefiting from these actions. These are questions that the relevant authorities, not me… are now examining.

1st October 2025

An example of the deceptive review practices. I was asked by Emily Keogh to have all of their negative reviews removed. Their staff are still posting 5 star reviews.

Here it is clearly evidenced that Amy works for / is associated with Palm PR and therefore this review has been flagged.

25th September 2025

Another example of Palm PR’s questionable review practices: the individuals leaving these reviews do not appear to be genuine clients. For example, Wiig has had no demonstrable SEO work completed (and if any has, the standard is extremely poor). Another review originates from a retiree, raising further doubts about whether these are legitimate client testimonials. I should note that these reviews were uploaded close to each other, with 2 reviews uploaded prior in the last few years.

1st September 2025

Palm PR attempted to suppress my factual review of their conduct. This is the letter that was sent to Googles legal team via post and electronically.

13th August 2025

After I sent the email below, Liam did not respond (as requested) and has since cut off contact on LinkedIn. I am not speculating about his motives, but his silence and distancing are consistent with a desire to avoid further engagement while investigations are ongoing. Any further actions will be included here as part of the contemporaneous record.

1st August 2025

All of this information is available in the public domain for all to review. In my opinion these anomalies do not prove misconduct in themselves, but they raise serious questions about Palm PR’s governance and financial transparency. At a minimum, they warrant scrutiny by regulators, creditors, and prospective clients. The lack of clear explanations in the filings leaves open the possibility of undisclosed transactions or deliberate concealment.

• A 49% cut in called-up share capital (from £100 to £51) with no supporting explanation on the public record.

• A director loan note inconsistency: filings state the balance was “repaid in full within 9 months,” yet £94,898 remains recorded.

• The Profit & Loss account has been omitted under s.444(1), which is lawful but removes performance detail at a time of large swings in equity.

• Net assets collapsed from +£62,910 to –£19,800 in one year, alongside nearly tripled borrowings (from £38,570 to £131,920).

29th July 2025

This is additional outreach to Emily Keogh that went without any response.

27th July 2025

The matter was deemed serious enough that a court approved and executed a search warrant at the home of Richard Nyande, an employee of Palm PR.

9th May 2025

Palm PR still have £15,132 (reduced from £15,726 as I would never claim for work not completed) in outstanding invoices since September 2024 with no contact with myself since – despite various attempts at outreach by myself and my debt chasing teams.

A formal Letter Before Action has been served, and Palm PR are on notice. On legal advice, I am awaiting the outcome of the criminal investigation involving their employee, Richard Nyande, before determining further civil and commercial claims that may arise from Palm PR’s conduct.

13th March 2025

The criminal case was transferred from the Metropolitan Police to Essex Police, as a staff member of Palm PR resides in Essex and forms part of the ongoing enquiries.

26th September 2024

This is outreach to Emily Keogh that went without any response.

12th September 2024

It is clearly evidenced that the key figures connected to the disputed events were employed by Palm PR days after resigning from greyzip Ltd.

6th September 2024

Key figures connected to the disputed events resigned within minutes of each other, without fulfilling their contractual notice obligations.

Section 13 of all staff contracts expressly requires one month’s written notice of resignation once probation is complete. No such notice was given. Instead, staff were advised to breach their contracts immediately. In addition, there has been a serious violation of the restrictive covenant clauses, designed to protect against client solicitation and misuse of confidential information. These breaches are now in the hands of my legal team.

13th August 2024

This contemporaneous email (13 August 2024) shows I introduced the concept of ‘Digital Exposure’ to Palm PR and raised the issue of IP/licensing. Palm PR subsequently adopted this terminology and model, with my former staff, without resolving ownership