Chromatic v Capsticks: On the Polished Non-Reply Draped in CSR Metrics

---

⟡ The Delay Draped in Corporate Sincerity ⟡
“We haven’t responded to your harm — but we’d love to tell you about our charity work.”

Filed: 9 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/NHSR/CWH-EXTENSION-VENEER
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-09_SWANK_Capsticks_CWH_DelayNotice.pdf
Capsticks LLP confirms delayed response to Letter of Claim re: Chelsea & Westminster Hospital, cloaked in boilerplate virtue and legal niceties.

⟡ Chromatic v Capsticks: On the Polished Non-Reply Draped in CSR Metrics ⟡
Chelsea & Westminster NHS, Capsticks LLP, NHS Resolution, clinical negligence claim, expert delay, corporate platitude, litigation delay dressing

---

I. What Happened
On 9 June 2025, Capsticks LLP (paralegal Alice Crisell) emailed Polly Chromatic regarding the ongoing clinical negligence claim against Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust. The firm confirmed it had been “instructed on a limited basis” by NHS Resolution and that its response — previously promised for 17 June — would be delayed to 15 July 2025.

This was explained in the language of procedural courtesy. The email closes with unsolicited referrals to third-party charities and a list of Capsticks’ corporate social responsibility (CSR) affiliations, none of which bear relevance to the subject at hand.

---

II. What the Letter Establishes

• ⟡ Delay framed as diligence — “We had hoped” to reply, but “expert evidence” continues to roam

• ⟡ Minimalist legalism paired with maximalist PR padding

• ⟡ Emotional outsourcing — refers claimant to Action Against Medical Accidents and Citizens Advice

• ⟡ Subtle refusal to fully engage — Capsticks is “limited” in instruction, NHS Resolution remains in control

• ⟡ Misuse of CSR — inserting unrelated virtue metrics into legal delay notifications

This was not an update. It was reputational embroidery.

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because corporate delay should not arrive with a philanthropic footnote. Because every deferral cloaked in community spirit is still a denial of timely justice. Because legal communications deserve structural rigour, not LinkedIn-scented padding.

Capsticks' response is not archived because it failed to reply.
It is archived because it succeeded — in refining delay into prose.

---

IV. Legal and Structural Implications

• Pre-Action Protocol (Clinical Negligence) – delay must be justified with real cause, not padded affect

• HRA 1998, Article 6 – right to a timely, fair process

• Public law ethics – response to harm must prioritise claimant’s need, not institutional optics

• Displacement tactic – deflecting responsibility onto non-legal charities mid-claim

---

V. SWANK’s Position
This wasn’t compassion. It was choreography.
This wasn’t transparency. It was typography.
SWANK does not accept CSR metrics as a substitute for timeliness.
We will not be redirected to third-party helplines while liability is under legal negotiation.
We do not care how many bake sales your firm holds if the evidence remains unaddressed.

⟡ This Dispatch Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. ⟡
Every entry is timestamped.
Every sentence is jurisdictional.
Every structure is protected.
To mimic this format without licence is not homage. It is breach.
We do not permit imitation. We preserve it as evidence.
This is not a blog.
This is a legal-aesthetic instrument.
Filed with velvet contempt, preserved for future litigation.
Because evidence deserves elegance.
And retaliation deserves an archive.

© 2025 SWANK London Ltd. All formatting and structural rights reserved.
Use requires express permission or formal licence. Unlicensed mimicry will be cited — as panic, not authorship.

---