Mr Justice Freedman is a senior judge of the High Court King’s Bench Division. In the case of Perseus Ventures v Foskett & others [2024] EWHC 2120 (KB), the judgment, handed down by Mr Justice Freedman on 8 July 2024 appears to contain a knowingly false statement in a material particular.

Despite the Claimant’s emails to the Court asking for Mr Justice Freedman to clarify why he appears to have concealed well proven wrongdoing, and the consequences of that wrongdoing, a cover up ensured and it is apparent that a network of operatives under H.M.C.T.S were deployed to defeat the claim.

It appears that Mr Justice Freedman was the ringleader, covering up obvious and serious breach of fiduciary duty, and then lying and saying no breach was established, knowing it was.

UPDATE – On 29 October 2025 we emailed Mr Justice Freedman asking for his comments on this report.   Mr Justice Freedman, in cowardice, did not respond, for obviously one cannot defend the indefensible.  Rather,  on 1 November 2025, he ‘retired’ from the  judiciary, with immediate effect! 

High Court: Retirement of The Honourable Sir Clive Freedman

Basis of the claim that Mr Justice Freedman presided over – Perseus Ventures Limited v Foskett, Alford, Duffy, Atkinson and Barclays Bank UK PLC

The claim alleged breach of fiduciary duty by David Foskett and Richard Alford, the joint Law of Property Act 1925 receivers appointed over 94 Rope Street, London, SE16 6AG (‘Property‘), owned by Perseus Ventures Limited in the B.V.I.

It was alleged that the LPA Receivers breached their fiduciary duty, failing to have received approximately £700,000 in rent and income derived from the Property throughout their 6-year plus tenure, knowing that they were under duties to have collected in the rent and income deprived from the Property.

The LPA Receivers, David Foskett and Richard Alford, joint senior partners of Copping Joyce appear then to have leveraged on the Bank’s security over the Property, charging the Claimant over £200,000 for failing to receive any of the circa £700,000 in rent which, had they done so, would have redeemed the outstanding secured loan, with the surplus paid to Perseus.

A case of charging for services not rendered? The Receivers charging for breaching their duty to receive, whilst their lawyers charge fees to Perseus for misadvising them? They had no worries, a sect of ‘English’ High Court judges were on hand ready to cover up their wrongdoings.

The obvious fact being, but for failure to perform on their fiduciary duties the Perseus loan would have been redeemed, and instead, Perseus was defrauded of the Property, valued at between £1.15 – £1.2 million when the Receivers sold it for £841,000 in September 2024!

Knowledge of LPA Receiver’s the duty to receive was established on 9 May 2018

Mr Foskett and Mr Alford, the joint LPA Receivers, were appointed on 14 March 2018, and in a letter dated 9 May 2018 to Perseus, the Receivers said this:

“we have written to Live Work Study London Ltd to inform them that the rent is due to us, and
that any rent payable to White Mid Sloan LTD will be lost, as it’s still due to us.”

Live Work Study London was one of the tenants in the Property, who were paying rent estimated to be £96,000 per annum, on their 3-year lease, and despite the Receivers being in direct contact with them and their lawyers, Perseus received, not a penny!

 

An established contractual and statutory duty to have received the rent and income from the Property

On 14 March 2018 the LPA Receivers were voluntarily appointed by Mr Walsh, also Chief Executive of this Firm, as well as Perseus Ventures Limited, by formal appointment with Barclays Bank PLC.

There was a £600,000 mortgage taken out with the Bank by Mr Walsh personally against the Property in 2006. On the date of the LPA Receiver’s appointment, the loan outstanding was circa £456,000.

A completed collateral contract binding the LPA Receiver’s statutory duty to receive

Below we exhibit the completed collateral contract wherein the Bank is proposing to appoint, and the LPA Receivers formally accept the appointment by signing to confirm they do.

It is evident that the contractual appointment of the LPA Receivers binds them to receive the Property and ‘all rent and income derived from the Property‘:

Certificate_Appointment_LPA_Receivers_14-03-2018

The knowingly false statement in a material particular by Mr Justice Freedman

At paragraph 83 of his judgment, Mr Justice Freedman, knowing that the claim is for breach of duty to have received, and that the loss in consequence was simply the rent and other income the Receivers failed to receive, and that there was a contractual and statutory fiduciary duty breached by the LPA Receivers, Freedman J said this:

“The matters that are before the court are in fact unestablished allegations with unestablished consequences. The court is not at this stage striking out the claim. That is not before the court.“

The case was then transferred to Master Brown who struck it out after ordering that Perseus was to pay the Defendants security for costs when the Defendants are alleged to have embezzled the Property and the proceeds of sale.

The case continues and we shall report following the next hearing.

Mr Justice Freedman, Mr Foskett, Mr Alford and Mr Duffy / Addleshaw Goddard have been invited for comment.