Paul Millinder’s Battle Against the British Justice System
Written by John Barwell
For years, businessman Paul Millinder has been portrayed by the courts as a vexatious litigant—a persistent claimant who repeatedly pursued unwinnable cases and refused to accept judicial rulings. He was ultimately banned from bringing legal proceedings in England and Wales without court permission and later sentenced to 15 months in prison for contempt of court.
Yet, Millinder and his supporters argue that this narrative is profoundly misleading. They contend that he is not a legal troublemaker but a Litigant in Person (LiP) who has exposed serious judicial misconduct and corruption—only to be systematically silenced by the very system he sought to hold accountable.
A Legal Odyssey Turned Battle for Transparency
Millinder’s legal struggles stem from a 2012 contract dispute over a wind turbine project involving Middlesbrough Football Club. The dispute escalated when he alleged financial misconduct and procedural improprieties in the handling of the case.
A pivotal moment came on 6 November 2020, when Mr. Justice Fancourt claimed he was unable to open a crucial PDF—the trial bundle that Millinder was relying on to prove alleged ex-parte fraud by non-disclosure. This resulted in Millinder losing approximately £1.2 million. A similar incident occurred on 9 January 2017, leading to further adverse rulings against him. Millinder asserts that these procedural failures were deliberate attempts to deprive him of justice.
Rather than allowing his claims to be tested through a full trial, Millinder contends that the courts shut him down. A series of rulings, including an Extended Civil Restraint Order (ECRO) and later a General Civil Restraint Order (GCRO), severely restricted his ability to bring claims. In 2021, an “all proceedings” order was imposed under Section 42 of the Senior Courts Act 1981, officially labelling him a vexatious litigant and barring him from initiating legal action without High Court permission.
Millinder argues that he has been immune from civil suit since 21 December 2017, when he first gave evidence as a witness for Earth Energy Investments LLP in relation to the Club’s allegedly fraudulent claims. He maintains that Mr. Justice Arnold had no jurisdiction over his case due to this immunity, which he says the courts have deliberately ignored. Additionally, he insists that his contempt charge was civil, not criminal—a distinction he claims has been intentionally obscured by the judiciary.
The Contempt Ruling: Punishment or Suppression?
Millinder’s refusal to comply with the court’s restrictions led to his committal for contempt of court. He was found guilty of breaching the Section 42 order by continuing to send legal communications and attempting to bring proceedings without permission. In November 2022, he was sentenced to 15 months in prison—a ruling he claims was designed to intimidate him into silence.
Court judgments describe Millinder as someone who bombarded judges and legal officials with excessive filings, ignored legal rulings, and made unfounded allegations of fraud against the judiciary. However, he insists his conduct was a necessary response to a system that, in his view, refused to engage with the overwhelming evidence of wrongdoing he had uncovered.
Millinder further alleges that one of the judges involved in his case is currently under police investigation for fraud. He argues that since September 2023, the courts could no longer find him in contempt because he has always been immune from suit. This, he claims, was demonstrated in the proceedings brought by Deuda Ltd, the company that acquired rights to sue those Millinder was pursuing.
“Every judge who ruled against me failed to consider the evidence,” he asserts. “When I pointed this out, instead of addressing the claims, they labelled me vexatious and falsely accused me of a crime.”
Legal Arguments & Case Law
Millinder relies on long-established legal principles and statutory law, including the automatic right of set-off, a legal doctrine dating back to Queen Anne’s reign. He specifically cites Stein v Blake and the 2020 Supreme Court ruling in Bresco Electrical Services, which he argues support his position.
He further asserts that he has been “dishonestly deprived of” the statutory right to set-off under insolvency law (Rule 14.25), which he maintains is central to his claim. Having navigated 44 hearings over eight years, Millinder insists he knows insolvency law better than many legal professionals and judges, and that the rulings against him are legally indefensible.
Millinder recalls that in 2019, the then-Chancellor of the High Court told him, “You are no fool, Mr. Millinder, you know this game as well as I do,” later describing him as an “expert in insolvency law.” However, the judgment by Lord Justice Vos made no mention of set-off or Rule 14.25, despite Millinder’s claim that this was central to the case.
He also states that the Government Legal Department (GLD) and Middlesbrough Football Club were unable to defend against Deuda Ltd’s 2025 claim, leading to an entitlement to default judgment.
The Move to Hong Kong
With his legal avenues in the UK exhausted, Millinder has turned to the courts in Hong Kong, where he hopes to bring proceedings against those he accuses of corruption.
Legal analysts say this is a bold move. While Hong Kong’s legal system still operates under common law principles, its distance from the British judiciary could provide an alternative venue where Millinder’s claims might be considered afresh, free from the constraints of previous UK rulings.
“It’s not uncommon for litigants who feel shut out by domestic courts to seek justice elsewhere,” says a legal expert familiar with the case. “If he can present his claims in Hong Kong, it could provide a new forum to assess whether he has a legitimate grievance or whether the UK courts were justified in their actions.”
Was Evidence Suppressed?
Millinder insists he has overwhelming evidence to support his claims—evidence he says has systematically been ignored or suppressed by the British courts. A recent draft judgment, spanning 89 pages, reportedly lays out his case in exhaustive detail. He argues that the judiciary and central government have conspired to prevent a fair adjudication of his allegations.
Documents from ongoing litigation reveal that Millinder’s claims centre on what he describes as “collateral fraud”—a deliberate effort to deprive him of his rights through procedural manipulation. He states that forensic analysis using AI technology has uncovered critical inconsistencies and concealed evidence, proving beyond doubt that the rulings against him were flawed from the outset.
“The fraud was never adjudicated on,” he says. “They don’t even try to argue against the evidence anymore. They just block me procedurally.”
A System That Shields Itself?
Millinder’s case raises broader concerns about how the British legal system deals with persistent litigants who challenge the establishment. Critics argue that while courts must manage meritless cases efficiently, judicial mechanisms designed to curb abusive litigation can also be used to silence individuals exposing uncomfortable truths.
For now, Millinder remains defiant. Though he has been painted as a vexatious litigant and a judge ordered his imprisonment for contempt, he left the country, and the order remains outstanding. He argues that the judge lacked jurisdiction to impose the sentence and maintains that history will vindicate him.
“I will not stop until the truth comes out,” he says. “They can block me in the UK, but they can’t stop me from exposing the corruption at the heart of the system.”
7 thoughts on “The Man Who Refuses to be Silenced: Paul Millinder’s Battle Against the British Justice System”
Paul Talbot-Jenkins says on : I am afraid you will never win against a system that is riddled with corruption and founded on fraud. They will do anything and everything to protect their vile secrets. Every judge kin the UK and possibly in America too is a Freemason for a Jew. The Jews established Freemasonry after Oliver Cromwell allowed them back into England after 400 years of exclusion. Freemasonry involves men in necromancy when they are ceremonially killed by three masons, then raised from the dead to become FREE from all Earthly restraints, they take on the persona of Hiram Abiff, the son of a widow of Tyre, thereafter they use the signs and symbols to inform other masons that they are protected by Biblical decree “To pervert not the judgment of the fatherless and widows.” This is fraud in passing themselves off as something they are not. Any judgment made by a Masonic judge is null and void by reason that he is involved in fraud.
Anthony Stansfeld says on : A great deal of truth in what he says. The civil judiciary is inherently corrupt today. 
David Frosdick says: Paul assisted me in pursuing a claim relying upon Official Receiver failing to apply mandatory set-off and the High Court treats me in the same way and blatantly failed to engage. What is the 2025 claim???
Zelda Davies says:: I’ve lived the experience, with evidential documents proving police and judicial corruption up and into to Londons court of appeal, also
A friend with striking similarities to yours, whom I firmly believe was murdered by those in high places, such documented police evidence and cover up by the coroner at the inquest, with many questions given no answers nor explanations and no way of holding the coroner to account. The judicial system in England is truly corrupt to the core, with Freemason “ brothers” all covering each others backs. I sincerely hope you manage to make a difference.
Professor Dora Kostakopoulou says:: The same happened to me; a bundle lost/deleted by the tribunal so that the hearing would be conducted without it. I received an abusive letter from the Regional Employment Judge when I asked what had happened to my submitted bundle. I complained to the President of ETs, EJ Barry Clarke in 2023; no reply received. As I wrote to the ET President, ‘While one could accept the possibility of a simple human error in deleting one email, I cannot accept that 10 emails with the attached parts of the bundle for an important preliminary hearing were accidentally deleted. Furthermore, as these 10 emails had the subject heading ‘BUNDLE CONTINUED’, such an error is unlikely to occur. The emails were deleted deliberately in order for the forthcoming preliminary hearing on strike outs to take place without my evidence (- in the same way that the ET ensured that the preliminary hearing conducted by EJ Camp in the parent case in August 2018 proceeded without my bundle of documents).’ I complained to the JACO on 16 January 2024. No reply has been received yet!I have found that deleting a LIP’s evidence, or suppressing it (- I have evidence of such a complaint against a judge who did it which went to the EAT, then Lord Bean and LJ Vos ) or ignoring it or mis-stating it or minimising its significance are common tactics in a judicial system that does not value much impartiality, respect for the rule of law and fundamental rights.- Professor Dora Kostakopoulou says on : I have also experienced the tactic of being defamed by judges as a vexatious litigant in order to silence me and prevent me from accessing justice. On 18 October 2024, I received out of the blue a limited restraint order from Mr J. Spencer, who was not a Media and Communications list judge and thus entitled to adjudicate my application, for merely following a judge’s order to me to submit my observations and my CPR right to apply for a default judgment. I replied to the High Court and asked for its rescission on the ground that it was an erroneous and legally void order, but the grounds of my application were not addressed by either Mr J. Spencer or Ms J. Collins-Rice. I had to write to Mr Andy Slaughter, the Chair of the Justice Committee, and to report very serious judicial misconduct and procedural abuse designed to breach individuals’ right to access justice (Article 6(1) ECHR).
Here are some extracts from my letter to the Chair of the Justice Committee of the House of Commons: ‘Regrettably, I must write to you again about the abuse of judicial authority by organs obligated to abide by the law. On 18 October 2024, and following my letter of complaint to you about Ms Justice Collins-Rice, Mr Justice Spencer abused his judicial authority by ignoring the Civil Procedure Rules and my statutory entitlement to request a default judgment since the Defendants had failed to file a defence. In the appended letters to the High Court, you would find more information about his action and how he misused the ‘totally without merit’ certification to issue a civil constraint on me.I had also followed an explicit High Court order authorising me to apply to vary it by the 16th of October. This right is guaranteed by law (CPR Rule 3.3(5)). When I exercised my rights, Mr Justice Spencer called my application a totally meritless one and an “abuse of court process” and punished me by restricting my court access. Mr Justice Spencer’s misconduct got worse. He used the false certifications as a basis for issuing a deceptive civil restraint order containing deliberately contradictory provisions (paragraph 8(i) promises a right to challenge without permissions and an oral hearing while para 4 makes this impossible) to entrap me and to pave the way for harsher restrictions to justice and the removal of my Article 6(1) ECHR rights across all my cases even outside the High Court (an extended civil restraint order) via the improper involvement of a Court of Appeal judge (Lord Justice Warby) in High Court matters. That was a carefully orchestrated and unlawful plan designed to hijack once more the fair determination of my cases. I devoted ample time to studying Mr. J. Spencer’s template and compiled relevant evidence of its use in other cases involving other parties. My study and research led me to conclude that it is a systemic “template” used by the court to entrap litigants. It uses paragraph 8(i) to give a false hope of an easy discharge process involving an oral hearing. When a party activates this paragraph, they are then surprised by the application of paragraph 4 which further restricts their access to justice. This creates grounds for even harsher restrictions since the judge would argue that the party had not used the ‘right’ procedure of para 4, the removal of all oral hearings and the effective abolition of the safeguards of Article 6(1) ECHR and thus the HRA 1998 by judicial fiat. I cannot think of a more egregious manifestation of judicial misconduct and rights abuse. Using false representations of both facts and law to issue deceptive and contradictory civil restraint orders, falsely labelling individuals exercising their statutory and human rights via grounded-in-law applications as vexatious litigants, and then using procedural entrapment to set them up to fail are grossly unethical tactics. Judges are not expected to lie, step outside the law, invent non-existent rules, ignore written legal submissions, or infringe statutory rights. Courts are meant to be impartial fora and not means of oppression, deception, and entrapment of those seeking justice. When the truth is ignored, and judges feel free to make false statements to remove people’s statutory and international law rights so easily, the legal system suffers. If, like a referee who only enforces rules against one team, judges disregard basic legal rules to protect the law-breaking party and to punish the innocent one, then such matters are not just about technical legal procedures – they are about basic fairness, honesty, and trust in our institutions and the integrity of the judicial system. I would like to zoom out of my specific experience and draw your attention to the troubling picture of what appears to be generalised systemic judicial misconduct designed to deny access to justice through deliberate procedural manipulation. I will use the official documents of the High Court to demonstrate this. Below, you could see the contradictory procedures for challenging a civil restraint order, as stated in Mr J. Spencer’s CRO I received. Please observe that the proper challenge (i.e., 8(i)) which is compliant with the CPR and Article 6(1) ECHR is contained in a Note. Please observe its clear contradiction with para 4.Please see below how the High Court reacts when a party follows the instruction of para 8(i). The instruction of 8(i) is erased; only paragraph 4 applies, thereby denying the party their fundamental rights and making the civil restraint order virtually unchallengeable. Once again, I use official High Court documents from another case to demonstrate this.It is difficult for anyone to believe that a court, and more importantly, the UK High Court, would seek to deceive, entrap and disempower parties in such an underhanded manner! Yet the documentary evidence is indisputable. This is a very serious matter which the Justice Committee of the House of Commons must address urgently in the public interest. The template of civil restraint orders must be suspended immediately and remedial action is urgently needed, as I noted in my letter to Ms Justice Steyn dated 26 October 2024.I would be pleased to meet with you and/or to provide evidence to the Justice Committee. I look forward to hearing from you as a matter of urgency. If I do not receive a reply, you would understand that I would have to present the whole file and the evidence to other bodies and individuals. I would like to thank you in advance. ’I never received a reply. The matter that you have raised in connection with Mr Millinder is very serious and affects a large number of individuals who are unjustly treated and silenced as a result of manufactured and untrue ‘vexatious’ narratives and civil restraint orders. Thank you for reporting on it! 
Paul Gregory says on : I think the issue is that in all the court hearings. bar one, no judge has acknowledged the breach of contract by MFC in refusing to connect the wind turbine to the two substations, even though a lease premium had been paid.
This article was written independently by Legal Lens
