ICC Judge Barber a danger to the public
November 13, 2025
Fraud exposed: Judge Lord Justice Nugee defacing evidence
November 17, 2025
Chief ICC Judge Briggs, AKA Nicholas Norman Briggs was appointed by the Judicial Appointments Commission as a Deputy High Court Judge on 11 November 2019, a role of which he is demonstratably unworthy.
Judges are only allowed to occupy office whilst on good behavior, and if a judge wilfully acts contrary to the law, with favour or malicious intent, he is a traitor, in breach of his oath, and is no longer entitled to hold office.
The long-established constitutionally important judicial oath dates back prior to the 1300’s. The Promissory Oaths Act 1868, Section 4 made the solemn promise a statutory requirement that all judges must strictly adhere to.
We expose the historic fraudulent abuse by Chief ICC Judge Briggs and others in 2018, following our 5-year private investigation into UK judicial misconduct by senior figures.
With real evidence, we tell it like we’re telling it to the ordinary man or woman down the pub, after all, this kind of financial abuse could happen to any entrepreneur or their business.
Can we rely on the UK’s judges to behave fairly, impartially and according to the law these days?
Who is Chief ICC Judge Briggs?
Chief ICC Judge Briggs originates in Somerset. After service in the Royal Marine Commandos, Briggs studied law at the University of Bristol and then the Bar School in London. As a barrister specialising in insolvency law, Chief ICC Judge Briggs was called to the Bar in 1994, in 1998 he became counsel to the Attorney General’s panel for the South West region and a Deputy Registrar of the Insolvency and Companies Court. In 2015 Briggs became a full time salaried Registrar of the Insolvency and Companies Court, and in 2017 was appointed as the Chief Registrar, recently renamed as ‘ICC Judge’, a Master of the Insolvency & Companies Court.
Chief ICC Judge Briggs sits in the Rolls Building, Insolvency & Companies Court specialist division of the High Court of Chancery on Fetter Lane in London.
In the public interest, pursuant to the maxim of equity ‘justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done‘ we expose historic acts by Chief ICC Judge Briggs that are, in anyone’s opinion, blatant affronts to justice and fraudulent acts to ensure, ‘justice was not done‘, with acts contrary to the law.
Treachery by Chief ICC Judge Briggs
Chief ICC Judge Briggs, like all judges in England & Wales swore solemn oath now having effect on these terms:
Oath of allegiance
“I, Nicholas Norman Briggs , do swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles the Third, his heirs and successors, according to law.”
Judicial oath
“I, Nicholas Norman Briggs , do swear by Almighty God that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign King Charles the Third in the office of Chief Registrar of the Chancery High Court Insolvency & Companies Division , and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill will.”
It is alleged that between 15 November 2017 – 11 April 2018 Chief ICC Judge Briggs acted fraudulently in conspiracy with ICC Judge Jones, ICC Judge Barber and HHJ Philip Mark Pelling in a protracted and severe affront to justice, with deliberate premeditated acts intended to defraud and to have defeated the ends of justice by concealment of crucial evidence and facts.
Evidence of a blatant and protracted affront to the law, his oath and justice by Chief ICC Judge Briggs
In our previous article we exposed ICC Barber who, acting without jurisdiction on 28 March 2018 committed acts described in law as being ‘in fraud of the bankrupt laws’, whilst defeating a High Court Judge’s order to prevent justice being served on the Defendants she is personally acquainted with.
It is our learned view that it was Chief Registrar Briggs who orchestrated the fraud against Mr Millinder and both his companies from November 2017 onwards.
Chief ICC Judge Briggs is responsible for the deployment of ICC Judges underneath him, whilst the Chancellor of the High Court and the Master of the Rolls are ultimately responsible for ‘allocation of cases to levels of judiciary‘ (see: CPR Practice Direction 2B, Section 2).
Grounds for setting aside a winding up petition – The independent A.I generative overview
“You can apply to set aside a statutory demand by claiming the debt is genuinely disputed, you have a valid counterclaim, the creditor holds security for the debt, there was a procedural error, or the debt is for less than £5,000. Another ground is if the debt is subject to a court judgment for which you are making payments.”
Logic before law – The 11 April 2018 (rescission of winding up order) facts & Chief ICC Judge Briggs knowledge of circumstance
Towards the bottom of this report we included links to the real evidence, words ‘out of the horse’s mouth’ spoken by Chief ICC Judge Briggs in Court, proving beyond doubt his knowledge of fact and circumstance, recorded on the official 11 April 2018 hearing transcript.
We quote the crucial facts that Chief ICC Judge Briggs is proven to have become acutely aware of, before doing what he is proven to have done:
From page 4 of the transcript:
“MR MILLENDER: — the 25,000 malicious winding up petition should never have happened because the case was sub judice, being heard by a High Court judge. The 25,000 relates to a Consent Order that was granted on the, on 16th January—-
THE CHIEF REGISTRAR: Yes.
MR MILLENDER: –by Mr Justice Norris. That Consent Order was obtained in fraudulent non-disclosure, and that is subject to proceedings – it’s subject to proceedings in terms of the 619,000 unwarranted demands with menaces. It’s also subject to proceedings—
THE CHIEF REGISTRAR: Just a minute, because we, we’re straying away – so you, you’d started by saying to me, “Is this the appropriate time to talk about the fact there was a missing disclosure of an order?”
MR MILLENDER: Yes, sir. That’s right”
From page 16 of the transcript:
“THE CHIEF REGISTRAR: Well you’ve only got – your cross claim has only got to equal or exceed £25,000.
MR MILLENDER: Twenty-five, which, which is – clearly it does“
It was identified by Chief ICC Judge Briggs that EEI has a cross claim of £530,000 plus interest which extinguished the abuse of process petition that was subject to challenge by a High Court Judge’s order of 21 March 2018 (as evident below).
From page 19 – 20 of the 41-page transcript:
MR MILLENDER: In full knowledge of that they should have then took these proceedings out of the equation, out of the question.
THE CHIEF REGISTRAR: I see.
MR MILLENDER: They should have withdrawn the petition. They didn’t withdraw the petition.
THE CHIEF REGISTRAR: Yes.
MR MILLENDER: They went ahead and maliciously wound up the company in full knowledge of the circumstances.
THE CHIEF REGISTRAR: Well I, I‘ve got your submission on that, yeah. Very good. Well thank you very much.
MR MILLENDER: Thank you.
THE CHIEF REGISTRAR: Is there anything else you need to show to, to just—-?
MR MILLENDER: I think that’s everything, sir.
THE CHIEF REGISTRAR: Thank you.”
From page 27 of the transcript: Crucial submission about the cross claim and acts that would amount to criminal matters of fraud:
MR MILLENDER: Yes, sir. Okay, fundamentally I have a cross claim and my cross claim far exceeds the 25 grand. I don’t owe these people any money. Let’s just base it on the £200,000; the lease premium that I paid on 17th June 2013 on the sole basis that the grid connection agreement had been finalised.
THE CHIEF REGISTRAR: Yeah, I, I – you’ve already told me about that. So I understand that.
MR MILLENDER: So, so the point I’m making is I don’t owe them the money. So the winding up petition is unlawful because I don’t owe them the money. I don’t owe them the money because I’ve got a cross claim. I also don’t owe them the money because this proceedings and that 25 grand is subject to challenge, and in addition the letter from Penningtons dated 11th January 2017, the second piece of non-disclosure that wasn’t covered in the first hearing of 5th February before Mr Justice Nugee, contained a shopping list of those material exhibits and it also stated, quite categorically, that each party shall bear its own costs. Therefore confirming quite categorically that I did not agree to that Consent Order. That piece of information was not presented before Mr Justice Norris on the return date. Had that information been presented there would be no 25 grand cost order, because any judge acting reasonably would have looked at the shopping list of material exhibits that were withheld, and said, “Well there’s obviously been significant material non-disclosure at the hearing. I’m not going to grant the order.”
From page 28 of the transcript:
“THE CHIEF REGISTRAR: (After a pause) This is a matter before Mr – well before a High Court Judge. It’s not, I don’t think it’s been reserved to any judge, the application which was listed in March”
The High Court Judge’s order of 21 March 2018
It is well proven that 3/4 way through the hearing on 11 April 2018 Chief ICC Judge Briggs established the following crucial facts:
- That on 21 March 2018 High Court Judge listed EEI’s application to set aside the order of 16 January 2017 originating the Club’s £25,000 winding up petition, proving beyond doubt that the winding up petition was an abuse of process and that the purported debt was not a liquidated sum due and payable.
- That the EEI claim against the Club originated first in order by way of assignment of the debt, 530,000 on 29 June 2015 and was pursued against the Club by way of a statutory demand served on them on 6 January 2017. Therefore there was in law, no debt on which the EEI winding up petition was based and the mandatory rule of insolvency set off conferred in Rule 14.25 of the Insolvency Rules 2016 was automatically engaged.
On both grounds, it is proven beyond doubt that there is no petitioning debt on which the Club’s winding up petition against EEI of 12 February 2018 was based, but that did not stop them, even though law intended it to.
The brazen complacency by Ulick Staunton and his long-term professional associate, Chief ICC Judge Briggs
From page 28 – 30 of the transcript:
MR STAUNTON: You saw that email from Mr Justice Arnold’s clerk saying that he was not the appointed judge.
THE CHIEF REGISTRAR: Yes.
MR STAUNTON: So it will just go—-
THE CHIEF REGISTRAR: So the—-
MR STAUNTON: —whatever, the challenge has to be listed in June, in front of the judge.
THE CHIEF REGISTRAR: Yes.
MR STAUNTON: If it survives.
THE CHIEF REGISTRAR: Yeah, well—-
MR STAUNTON: Because if in fact the Winding Up Order continues, my solicitor will no doubt be in contact with the liquidator, which will probably be somebody from the OR’s office, inviting them to withdraw the application. So it may not actually come on, but if it does come on it will be listed – whoever judge is listed—-
THE CHIEF REGISTRAR: Yes.
MR STAUNTON: —who selects the judge?
THE CHIEF REGISTRAR: Well my question was, is it still listed?
MR STAUNTON: Pardon me. It’s still listed. It’s, it’s in the window, the three day window, 6th June.
THE CHIEF REGISTRAR: Yes.
MR MILLENDER: So this is an action winding – in winding this company up unlawfully, this is a direct action in perverting the course of justice in full knowledge that the part – the second application I made on 1st March covers material non-disclosure. It covers blackmail in the sum of 619,000 and it covers the three false misrepresentations, namely the first fraud for, for misrepresentation that Mr Staunton made on 19th September, stating that the, Empowering Wind MFC owes his client £255,000. You did make that submission, didn’t you, Mr Staunton? And that was the submission that caused the winding up, because Mr Registrar Baister said, “Ah, Mr Millender, you haven’t disclosed”—-
THE CHIEF REGISTRAR: But you’re talking about Empowering Wind again, aren’t you?
MR MILLENDER: Empowering – we’re talking about Empowering Wind. But I’m now taking about the—-
THE CHIEF REGISTRAR: I only want to hear about Earth—-
MR MILLENDER: —false misrepresentations that are linked to this case.
THE CHIEF REGISTRAR: Well I only want to talk about Earth Energy.
MR MILLENDER: Exactly.
THE CHIEF REGISTRAR: Yeah.
MR MILLENDER: That are linked to the case that’s before Mr Justice – or was before Mr Justice Nugee, the same application that I made on 1st March, which cumulates all of the incidents, the non-disclosure, the blackmail in the sum of 619,000, and the three false misrepresentations, the 255, the 541,308, and then a month later the 4.1 million. That’s some power generation. I mean there’s no turbine. It’s all fraud.
Having established that the petition was already dead, an abuse of process with no debt, Chief ICC Judge Briggs ‘selected the judge’ and denied justice to defraud Mr Millinder of over £650,000 in absence of law
THE CHIEF REGISTRAR: (After a pause) I’m going to take a very unusual step in this case and that is I am going to decide, for reasons I shall give very briefly, that rather than rescind this order to wind up today with a discretion then just to keep the petition alive and then relist it in the winding up list after the hearing in June. Rather than do that I think it’s best that I adjourn today’s hearing for rescission to be heard at the same time as the application, which is listed currently, in June.
There was no debt on which the petition was based and he knew it, they judicial fraudsters are exposed.
The ‘monstrous’ (HHJ) Philip Mark Pelling was factored in by Chief ICC Judge Briggs on the adjournment of the nullity abuse of process winding up petition’
In the following article we expose the judge selected by Chief ICC Judge Briggs (HHJ Philip Mark Pelling) to conceal the fraud against both Mr Millinder’s companies and to prevent justice being served on the Tory government affiliated defendants, Middlesbrough Football Club and the Official Receiver, Mr Hannon, installed as liquidator to assist in the alleged government orchestrated conspiracy.
LINKS TO EVIDENCE
We include links to the real evidence relied on in this investigation:
- Earth Energy Investments LLP (‘EEI) originating application to a High Court Judge of 15 November 2017 pursuant to Rule 14.11 of the Insolvency Rules 2016 dealing with allegedly fraudulent proofs of debt, misconduct by the Official Receiver (Liquidator) of Empowering Wind MFC Ltd (‘EW’) and alleged fraudulent non-disclosure by Middlesbrough Football Club and their lawyers during ex-parte financial injunction proceedings brough by the Club on 9 January 2017 to refrain presentation of EEI’s £530,000 winding up petition served on the Club on 6 January 2017.
- Order by ICC June Jones of 26 March 2018
- Article exposing ICC Judge Barber as ‘a danger to the public‘ for acting unlawfully in absence of law and without jurisdiction defeating a High Court Judge’s order and EEI with the fraudulent winding up proceedings on 28 March 2018.
- Transcript of the hearing before Chief ICC Judge Briggs on 11 April 2018.
- ‘Purported determinations’ in June 2018 by HHJ Philip Mark Pelling evading the crucial points on material non-disclosure and insolvency set off in respect of EW and EEI and then acting fraudulently without jurisdiction in an affront to justice, the statutory law and relevant case law, making an Extended Civil Restraint Order against Mr Millinder to conceal the substance of litigation.
Invitation to comment
Judicial independence and an ‘incorruptible’ judiciary they say. Bollocks, we say.
The Lord Chancellor, Lady Chief Justice, Attorney General’s Office, City of London Police, Director of Public Prosecutions at the Crown Prosecution Service and the Constitution Committee of the House of Lords, along with Chief ICC Judge Briggs, the Chancellor of the High Court and Master of the Rolls, have been invited to comment.
Help us to help you, share widely, and please consider a donation to our fighting fund.
What would the man down the pub think?
Comments please.
