High Court’s severe affront to justice by HHJ Pelling KC
November 21, 2025
Judicial corruption violates not only the rights of victims, but also the State’s treaty-based human rights obligations and international law, eroding democracy, defeating judicial propriety with nepotism and third party influence, undermining the rule of English law, justice and the public trust.
In this article we expose ‘3 judicial stooges’, (Lord Justice Arnold, Lord Justice Nugee & the Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Vos) and the lies they told and acts they carried out to conceal the crucial facts and evidence. Unquestionably, a severe affront to justice, by senior members of the judiciary.
Told for the ordinary man or woman down the pub, and based on real evidence, we expose major flaws in the UK justice system with unregulated and lawless judges lying and cheating to sway the case in favour of the wrongdoers due to their political status and connections.
Welcome to the totalitarian state of systemically corrupt two-tier justice Britain, the English rule of law is no more.
1 of 3: Sir Richard Arnold – AKA Lord Justice Arnold
On 9 January 2017 Sir Richard Arnold (Richard David Arnold – D.O.B 23 June 1961) presided over an ex-parte financial injunction application brought by Middlesbrough Football Club, owned by its Chairman, Steve Gibson OBE, the Tory turncoat former Labour politician.
It is between 9 January 2017 and 16 January 2017 that the offending by Middlesbrough Football Club, their lawyers, and Sir Richard Arnold occurred.
On 17 October 2019, Sir Richard was made Lord Justice Arnold, elevated from the High Court, now sitting in the Court of Appeal, reviewing decisions from lower courts to ensure the law was applied fairly and correctly.
Taxpayer sponsored cronyism by corrupt officials in charge of the judiciary? You decide.
Sir Richard Arnold, pictured is now Lord Justice Arnold sitting in the Court of Appeal – an extreme risk of harm to all he comes into contact with?
Judicial corruption; Sir Richard Arnold in the Insolvency & Companies High Court of Chancery – a severe affront to justice
Earth Energy Investments LLP v Middlesbrough Football & Athletic Company (1986) Ltd
The legal duty of full and frank disclosure during ex-parte financial injunction proceedings – The case before Sir Richard Arnold
The two crucial facts and the related material information
Paragraph 108 of the judgment by Lord Justice Vos, Chancellor of the High Court of 8 February 2019 referring to the assignment from EW to EEI.
FACT 2: The EEI claim was based on the completed contractual terms – namely the force majeure definition and clauses:
The operative clause of force majeure in the lease between EW and Middlesbrough Football Club
Schedule 7 of the lease (Rent) provided for 365-days free to rent from which EW was to have ‘commissioned’ the wind turbine. Therefore, from 23 December 2014, EW was to enjoy 269-days free of rent.
The first instalment of rent in the sum of £15,000 including V.A.T was due on Friday 18 September 2015. On 19 August 2015 the Club forfeited the lease, based on their unwarranted demand, after killing the project. Without a connection, the turbine cannot operate!
Middlesbrough Football Club defeated the connection and therefore the contracts that required it – Then failed to disclose that they did !
Middlesbrough Football Club ‘killed the project’ with 3 strikes:
A. On 30 April 2015, the Club refused the connection – without a connection, the turbine cannot operate.
B. On 25 June 2015 the Club demanded the sum of £256,269.89 of which £75,000 was for rent and £181,269.89 an invoice for energy supply, they were contractually prohibited from invoicing for, as the supply contract required EW’s “satisfaction in full of” “entering into a connection agreement” prior to any “Entitlement to Agreed Output” (agreement to supply power).
We feature the official hearing transcript and judgment of 9 January 2017, when Sir Richard Arnold, then a High Court Judge, presided over the Club’s (without notice) financial injunction application brought by Middlesbrough Football Club, and their solicitors, Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP in Newcastle, who instructed Ulick Staunton, counsel, of Radcliffe Chambers.
The ex-parte transcript of 14-pages including Sir Richard Arnold’s judgment, enabled us to pinpoint and exhibit the evidence Sir Richard Arnold was taken to, so we can prove, with a high degree of assurance, his actual knowledge of fact and circumstances, prior to fraudulently misrepresenting and concealing those crucial facts in the way that Sir Richard Arnold did.
The evidential test we performed establishes a person’s state of mind (mens rea), and culpability of the fraud by false representation, easily proven on the strength of the real evidence, to have been committed by Sir Richard Arnold.
False representations by the Club in relation to the force majeure clause in the lease:
From the official transcript (pages 3 – 4):
MR STAUNTON: If I take you to p.32, cl.1.1, covenant to pay that further rent as set out in Schedule 7. Page 48, cl.1.4.1, there is the further rent of 50,000 a year.
The respondent argues constantly about force majeure. Can you turn back to p.22, please? There is a definition clause for force majeure. The very curious thing is, although it is part of the definition clause of the lease, there is no further mention in the lease of force majeure, what happens should circumstances of force majeure arise. It is very curious.
MR JUSTICE ARNOLD: Right. Yes, that is odd.
MR STAUNTON: So it does not appear on the face of this document that any event of force majeure excuses Empowering Wind from paying the rent. Where you do find force majeure is, if you turn on to the energy supply agreement, p.51, it has an effective force majeure clause. So p.51. This is the energy supply agreement.
MR JUSTICE ARNOLD: Yes.
MR STAUNTON: If you turn on to p.54, you will see the force majeure definition about two-thirds of the way down the page. It is slightly different to the definition of force majeure in the lease, but that’s neither here nor there in my submission, but this does have effect because if you turn on to p.57—-
MR STAUNTON: — cl.3.1.2, there is an obligation to pay sums, and p.60, cl.6, does have an effective force majeure clause. Now, I do not have, in the evidence, any answers to why there is an effective force majeure in the energy supply agreement but not in the lease, but that is the evidence before you.
MR JUSTICE ARNOLD: Okay.
MR STAUNTON: Now, the rent was not paid and there was a demand, forfeiture. Can you turn to p.66? There is the invoice for the rents. Page 67 is the invoice itself and p.73—-
MR JUSTICE ARNOLD: Yes?
Although wilfully blind, Ulick Staunton, counsel for the Club and Sir Richard Arnold are not and were not then physically blind anyway, they can see as well as you can below, that page 67 of the Club’s ex-parte bundle was not an invoice for the rents at all, rather, it is an invoice for £181,269.89 for energy supply, which Ulick Staunton admitted was not owed, because, in his own words, there is an “effective force majeure clause“.
Page 67 of Middlesbrough Football Club’s ex-parte hearing bundle is not an invoice for rent at all – as they falsely represented in Court – Arnold J must have known that !
Failure to disclose crucial material facts in relation to the energy supply agreement:
The Club and their lawyers failed entirely to disclose that any ‘invoicing & payment‘ was contractually prohibited, because there was to contractual “Entitlement to Agreed Output‘ after the Club refused the connection on 30 April 2015.
On the contrary, in breach of their legal duty of full and frank disclosure, they failed to disclose both!
Summary of the Club’s wrongdoings during their 9 January 2017 ex-parte financial injunction hearing:
1. Ulick Staunton, counsel for the Club referred at paragraph 6 of his skeleton created prior to the hearing, to the fact that the lease contains a force majeure clause. During the hearing Mr Staunton lied about it, saying there was no force majeure clause in the lease, other than the definition, because he knew no rent was owed precisely due to existence of that clause. Mr Staunton lied in Court saying that the invoice for energy supply, he knew could not be established, is an invoice for the rent, knowing it is an invoice for energy supply that was not owed either.
2. The Club and their lawyers failed to disclose the crucial material fact that on 30 April 2015, the Club, acting by Mr Bloom himself (pictured below), defeated the connection, and the contractual purpose. In tandem with that material non-disclosure, was failure to disclose that the energy supply agreement was conditional upon EW / EEI’s ‘satisfaction in full’ of entering into that connection agreement, prior to there being any agreement to supply any power.
3. The Club and their lawyers withheld the planning related evidence, the grid connection related evidence and the assignment on which the demand was based, when that evidence was served on them by process server, in person, by emptying the contents on the front desk of the Club’s stadium, at 10.30AM on 6 January 2017.
Knowingly false statement certified as true by the Club:
Paragraph 22.2 of the Club’s 8 January 2017 witness statement by Jeremy Robin Bloom
It is evident from the official transcript we recited above, that Ulick Staunton took Sir Richard Arnold to the Club’s unwarranted demand dated 25 June 2015, comprising of a purported claim for £75,000 in rent, and £181,269.89 energy supply.
The first page (1 of 7) was page 66 of the Club’s ex-parte bundle, and page 67 was therefore page 2.
Pages 3 – 7 are invoices for the quarterly rent in the sum of £15,000 including V.A.T.
Similarly, Sir Richard Arnold was also taken the Schedule 7 of the lease (Rent) which also affirmed that the rent is £50,000 a year payable in quarterly instalments. Below, we exhibit a photograph of Schedule 7: 
In the Club’s ex-parte hearing bundle, Sir Richard Arnold also learned that the Club had made an additional claim in the sum of £541,308.89 against EW of which £466,308.89 was also for energy supply!
19-days prior, the Club was claiming the sum of their unwarranted demand, of which £181,269.89 was that invoice for energy supply!
Page 5 of the EEI demand listed the assignment as one of the exhibits with it, along with the ‘Connection Deed’ and ‘Connection Offer’, Sir Richard Arnold must have known that these documents were withheld, but no further questions were asked.
We recite paragraphs 3 – 4 of Sir Richard Arnold’s ex-parte 9 January 2017 judgment below:
“3. The background to the matter, in summary, is as follows. On 17 June 2013 the applicant granted Empowering Wind a lease on payment of a premium of £200,000 under which Empowering Wind was liable to pay rent of £550,000 per annum. There was a planning aspect to the matter which I do not propose to go into in any detail, but the upshot was that it was not until December 2014 that Empowering Wind obtained planning permission from the local planning authority. Empowering Wind paid the rents due under the lease up to June 2015, but thereafter failed to pay the rent. On 19 August 2015 the applicant forfeited the lease.
4. It is apparently Empowering Wind’s assertion, and now the respondent’s assertion, that the delay which was encountered between September 2013 and December 2014 in obtaining planning permission from the local planning authority was an event of force majeure under the lease. Be that as it may, it is at least arguable on the evidence before the court that Empowering Wind and the respondent have known for a very considerable period of time that the claim was disputed“
It becomes obvious to the ordinary man or woman reading this down the pub, that Sir Richard Arnold said he ‘did not want to go into the planning aspect to the matter‘, because he knew that the Club had withheld the planning related evidence
If Sir Richard Arnold believed himself when he said that EW paid the rents due under the lease up until June 2015, he knew that the next instalment of rent in the sum of £15,000 (including V.A.T) was due on 18 September 2015!
Sir Richard Arnold however, did not make any error, for he approved the judgment in November 2019, long after it was orally handed down, and he knew that the Club had demanded £75,000 for rent and £181,269.89 for energy supply.
After discovering that the Club fictitiously claimed £541,308.89 on 20 December 2016, at paragraph 3 of his judgment, Sir Richard Arnold is attested making the knowingly false representation that the rent owed to the Club was £550,000 per annum, knowing nothing was owed at all!
PRIMARY CONCLUSION: Judicial corruption by 1 of 3: Sir Richard Arnold:
- Sir Richard Arnold concealed obvious material non-disclosure by the Club and their lawyers, he lied about the rent, knowing that contractually force majeure had effect and no rent was owed.
- Sir Richard Arnold lied and said EW paid the rents up until June 2015, when he knew no rent was owed and that he had before him an invoice dated 25 June 2015, in the sum of £15,000 including V.A.T
- Sir Richard Arnold lied and said the rent owed to the Club was £550,000 to conceal the obviously false claim of 20 December 2016 by the Club, of which £466,308.89 was for energy supply!.
Sir Richard Arnold was given a taxpayer sponsored promotion, elevated to a Lord Justice of Appeal, after breaching his oath and acting fraudulently in this case, it is proven.
2 of 3: Sir Christopher Nugee – AKA Lord Justice Nugee
On 30 January 2018 EEI made an application to set aside the fraudulently obtained order of 9 January 2017.
Sir Christopher Nugee (D.O.B; 23 January 1959) AKA Lord Justice Nugee presided over EEI’s application and to prove his acts of judicial corruption, we relied on real evidence, the 88-page official transcript of the hearing of 5 February 2018, and the 6-page approved judgment.
On 5 February 2018, sitting in the Rolls Building, the interim applications Court 10, when Sir Christopher Nugee, then a High Court Judge, purported to determine EEI’s application of 30 January 2018 to set aside the Club’s injunction orders. At paragraphs 3 – 4 of his judgment, Sir Christopher Nugee said this:
“3…I have heard some explanation from Mr Millinder as to why that project did not succeed, his contention being that it was, in effect, all Middlesbrough’s fault for failing to enter into an agreement called the connection agreement. The upshot of that was that EW was unable to generate any money, that meant it was neither able to pay rent under the lease, nor to pay what were quite substantial charges ostensibly payable under something called the energy supply agreement under which, if it was not supplying energy to Middlesbrough it had to pay Middlesbrough a figure based on eight pence for each kilowatt hour of energy which Middlesbrough consumed.
4. On the basis of those matters, Middlesbrough demanded payment of money from EW, terminated the lease for non payment of rent and subsequently appeared as a supporting creditor in support of a petition to wind up EW brought by HMRC. In January of 2017, Middlesbrough received a statutory demand, not from EW which was by then in liquidation, but by EEI claiming over half a million pounds in respect of what could be briefly described as abortive costs, namely £200,000 which had been paid by EW for the premium for the lease, and a further £330,000 said to be for costs which had been incurred on the project.”
Sir Christopher Nugee just did not consider judging in the public interest on the obvious and deliberate falure of the Club to have disclosed the material fact that on 30 April 2015, the Club defeated the contractual purpose, refusing the connection. It was obvious to anyone, they failed to disclose that material fact, whilst hiding it by also failing to disclose the Connection Deed, Northern Powergrid Connection Agreement and the agreement between the Club themselves and Northern Powergrid, for establishing the wind turbine connection.
Two tier selective judging, but this is far more sinister, we quickly reveal..
Judicial corruption: findings of material non disclosure by Sir Christopher Nugee on 5 February 2018 – an obvious cover up
At paragraphs 5 – 6 of his judgment, Mr Justice Nugee found, and the Club’s lawyers did not dispute that they withheld all the information said to have been withheld by Mr Millinder and his lawyers, Penningtons Manches LLP, in their letter to Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP of 11 January 2017. Sir Christopher Nugee said this:
6. It is not disputed that those documents were not put before Mr Justice Arnold. I was also shown a note of the hearing in which Mr Staunton, who appeared for Middlesbrough then as he does for Middlesbrough today, says this:
“There is a definition of force majeure in the lease. There is no other reference to force majeure in the lease.”
That was something he repeated before me, but in fact, there was a provision in the lease at schedule 5, paragraph 6, which provided that:
“If either party is prevented for any period of time from performing its obligations under this lease by reason of force majeure, that party shall not be in breach of such obligations for so long as, and to the extent to which such reason shall subsist.”
Ulick Staunton lied about force majeure in the lease, in breach of his legal duty to have disclosed. Knowing of that, and then repeating the lie in relation to the most crucial contractual fact, Sir Christopher Nugee implied he did not believe Mr Staunton deliberately misled the Court.
Any judging by Mr Justice Nugee as to the contractual terms of the energy supply agreement was negated, following on from Sir Richard Arnold’s lie, that the rent was £550,000, to cover up £466,308.89 in energy supply, and £75,000 in rent!.
No consideration was given to the fact that Mr Staunton admitted on 9 January 2017 that the Club could establish no claim for energy supply, because ‘force majeure has effect’.
Rather, due to persistent failure to judge, on 20 February 2017, the Club fictitiously claimed £4,111,874.75, of which, over 4 million was also for energy supply!
To put that into perspective, 42-days after Mr Staunton admitted in the open Court that no claim could be established, on 9 January 2017, when his client, the Club was claiming £466,308.89 for energy supply, whilst on 25 June 2015 claiming the sum of £181,269.89 which Mr Staunton lied in Court about and said was “the invoice for the rents“, Middlesbrough Football Club and their lawyers, who completed the conditional energy supply agreement, then claimed £4,031,664.80 for energy supply!
Elizabeth Jones KC a Deputy High Court Judge of the same Court submitted that the non-disclosure was obviously material – Nugee J covered it up!
At paragraph 7 of his 5 February 2018 judgment, Sir Christopher Nugee said this:
“7. It is true that that provision was, in fact, referenced in the evidence, being a witness statement of Mr Bloom on behalf of Middlesbrough that was put before Mr Justice Arnold on the 9th January, both at paragraph 8.5 where that clause is referred to, and at paragraph 19, where he refers to a letter in which he had pointed out that even if there had been a force majeure event that would only have absolved EW from any breach of its contractual obligations, not from its liability to pay rent. I agree, however, with Ms Jones, that on an ex parte application judges are far more likely to pay attention to what counsel tells them than to matters disclosed in the evidence, and the statement by Mr Staunton, I think one must conclude, was in fact inaccurate, although I have no reason to think that Mr Staunton in any way misled Mr Justice Arnold deliberately. Ms Jones suggested that the non disclosure of the material which Mr Millinder relies on was undoubtedly material. It seems to me, however, that one must bear in mind the nature of the application that was brought before Mr Justice Arnold and then continued before Mr Justice Norris.“
Concise analysis of paragraph 7 of Sir Christopher Nugee’s judgment:
Mr Justice Nugee certainly did know that Mr Staunton was under professional duties to his client, and to the Court to have diligently read his own client’s witness statement, and at p.8.5 Mr Bloom of the Club expressly stated that the lease contains a force majeure clause. On the balance of probabilities, that is from where Mr Staunton learned of the fact, which he repeated at paragraph 6 of his skeleton he created prior to the hearing, when he said this:
“The lease contains a force majeure clause“
Contrary to what his client was saying however, and what he said in his skeleton, during the short hearing on 9 January 2017, Mr Staunton lied, and said the force majeure clause was not in the lease, when it is proven he knew it was:
“The very curious thing is, although it is part of the definition clause of the lease, there is no further mention in the lease of force majeure, what happens should circumstances of force majeure arise. It is very curious.
“So it does not appear on the face of this document that any event of force majeure excuses Empowering Wind from paying the rent. Where you do find force majeure is, if you turn on to the energy supply agreement, p.51, it has an effective force majeure clause.“
It was easy to prove that Sir Christopher Nugee was covering up Mr Staunton’s dishonesty, it was obvious dishonest representation of the crucial contractual material fact.
JUDICIAL CORRUPTION: The ‘Judges’ bypassed the mandatory law of due process: insolvency set off to achieve their idealisms
Rule 14.25 of the Insolvency Rules 2016 required that the Club’s unwarranted demand of £256,269.89 presented in Court by Mr Staunton on 15 August 2016, was to have been set off entirely against EW’s claim exceeding £10 million for defeating the contractual purpose and then making an unwarranted demand, forfeiting the lease off the back of it, which was precisely that claim.
Sir Christopher Nugee found that the Club’s failure to disclose went to proving the fact that they ‘killed the project’
At paragraph 8 of his judgment, Sir Christopher Nugee said this:
“In this case, two separate grounds were advanced by Middlesbrough, both in the evidence and by Mr Staunton before Mr Justice Arnold. One related to the underlying nature of the claim by EEI, which was a question as to whether it was right that it was Middlesbrough’s fault that the project had collapsed and whether there was a cause of action for the sums which had been thrown away as a result, and it does seem to me that the bulk of the non disclosure went to that issue. The other was a question as to whether EEI had any cause of action vested in it at all.”
Lies about the contractual facts & failure to disclose that the Club defeated the connection on 30 April 2015:
The crucial contractual fact proving the underlying claim was the force majeure clause of the lease that Mr Staunton twice lied about, the fact that the Club defeated the connection and the conditional energy supply agreement that Mr Staunton also lied about.
It is evident from the 9 January 2017 transcript that Mr Staunton lied and said page 67 of the Club’s bundle (the energy supply invoice of £181,269.89) was ‘the invoice for the rents‘, after he admitted that no claims could be established for energy supply, not because the Club refused the connection and therefore there was no contractual agreement to supply power (and any invoicing was contractually prohibited), but because, in his own words, “force majeure has effect“.
42-days after their instructed counsel, Mr Staunton, admitted no claims could be established for energy supply, acting contrary to the mandatory engaged rule on insolvency set off (14.25 Insolvency Rules 2016) the Club and their lawyers then falsely claimed for over £4 million of energy supply!
Mr Hannon, the Official Receiver of London, acting as liquidator, acted corruptly by failing in his duty to have set off.
Sir Christopher Nugee found that no money was owed to the Club for rent or energy supply, and from 5 February 2018 onwards the EW and EEI cross claims arising from those pre-liquidation mutual dealings were to have been set off and collected in by the liquidators pursuant to Rule 14.25(5) of the Insolvency Rules 2016.
Successive corrupt judges bypassed not only the crucial contractual terms, but the mandatory law of due process as well, and then they concealed their fraudulent failure to have administered the law, by negating to make a single reference to the statutory rule, anywhere, in any of their fraudulent determinations in Mr Millinder’s case, from the very start to the very end.
Sir Christopher Nugee covered up obvious contempt and a knowingly false statement by Mr Bloom of the Club in a material particular
At p.9 of Mr Justice Nugee’s judgment, he said this:
“9. EEI’s appearance on the scene, as I understand it, was first apparent to Middlesbrough in the statutory demand, there having been correspondence before that date in which EW had been putting forward various claims against Middlesbrough. This was all dealt with in the evidence of Mr Bloom, who said that according to the statutory demand, the alleged debt was assigned by EW to EE on the 29th June 2015, and then makes a number of points in that regard, namely, that the lease had not been terminated on that date, therefore EW’s alleged claim against MFC did not even exist at the purported date of assignment, and then he refers to an email of 15th December 2016 in which Mr Millinder stated that he had the right to progress the claim:
“But I shall assign to its parent company.”
and that:
“EW’s liquidation did not prevent us from signing rights.”
and put forward the contention that it was to be implied from these statements that as at 15th December 2016 no such assignment had occurred.”
At p.10 of Sir Christopher Nugee’s judgment which we recite below, he found that the assignment of 29 June 2015 was one of the documents that the Club withheld, it was the assignment on which the EEI claim is based, it is obviously, as the learned Judge, Ms Jones KC submitted, material information, and there are obvious lies by Mr Bloom we addressed earlier in this report.
2-days prior to lying and denying existence of the assignment on which the demand was based, the Club was served in person by an independent process server who emptied the contents of the envelope containing the EEI statutory demand, the assignment and all the rest of the material information withheld. That information was found to have been withheld, because it was first in the Club and their lawyer’s possession, with the demand.
It is proven therefore beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Bloom and the Club are in contempt of Court for making the knowingly false statement at p.22.2 of their 8 January 2017 witness statement.
Similarly, it is proven beyond doubt that the non-disclosure of the assignment was material, which is why it was withheld, and on 8 February 2019, in his judgment, the third of the three cheats we expose in this report, Sir Geoffrey Vos, said this:
For precisely the reason that the terms of the assignment were sufficiently clear to amount to a valid assignment (of the 530,000 sum of EEI statutory demand), Sir Christopher Nugee then did this, at paragraph 10 of his judgment:
After finding that the assignment was withheld – Sir Christopher Nugee forged and falsely represented it!
A screenshot we took of the original assignment terms (underlined green for emphasis) that Lord Justice Nugee had before him – He had the conscious and premeditated intent to falsely represent
Below is p.10 of Sir Christopher Nugee’s 5 February 2018 judgment where he committed fraud by false representation and or forgery of the absolute assignment to make his corrupted version, not absolute, defacing the evidence by altering it only in the 3 places within the paragraph where doing so makes his version, not absolute (which he relied on to form his fraudulent decision)
False representations defacing the evidence by Sir Christopher Nugee are underlined red
Fundamentally, the crucial assignment that was withheld and lied about by the Club, and was forged and falsely represented by Sir Christopher Nugee, proved that Mr Bloom’s argument at p.22.2 where he lied and denied all knowledge of the assignment he had in his possession.
It is evident that Mr Justice Nugee knew that Mr Bloom’s argument at p.22.2 of his statement was nonsense, as the assignment expressly told them that it was the investment in EW that was assigned and that:
There are two causes of action, with the Parent recovering funds invested and EW recovering consequential loss”
The evidence withheld reveals that Mr Bloom misled the Court by lying and implying that because the claim vested in EW required assigning, there was no assignment of the funds invested to EEI.
3 of 3: Sir Geoffrey Vos – Master of the Rolls – Now head of civil justice for England & Wales
An illustrated photograph of Mr Staunton’s 12 November 2018 skeleton argument for the Club – Sir Geoffrey asked him to retract and replace !
“103. I can say at once that I have been through all the papers in this case in meticulous detail, and I have seen no evidence of any kind for any of the allegations of fraud, conspiracy or misdealing that Mr Millinder has made. He has made these allegations when he became frustrated by his seeming inability to find a forum in which he would vindicate what he saw as his companies’ irrebuttable claims. He should not have done so, nor should he have threatened any of these professionals or public servants as he has sought to do. I hope that, once he has read and digested this judgment, he will understand why this behaviour has been inappropriate. I hope also that it will hereafter cease“
“105. On 25th June 2015, Middlesbrough invoiced Empowering Wind MFC for a quantified claim for rent in the sum of £256,269.89 and threatened forfeiture of the Lease and termination of the ESA. Mr Millinder could at that stage, on behalf of Empowering Wind MFC, if he had grounds to do so, immediately have challenged those claims. He could have sought an injunction to restrain the presentation of a winding up petition, or initiated a civil claim to determine whether or not the monies claimed were due on the basis of the force majeure clauses or otherwise. At the same time, Mr Millinder could have advanced Empowering Wind MFC’s alleged cross claims for misrepresentation and breaches of the Lease and the ESA. He did not, however, do so.“
CONCLUSION: Judicial corruption, fraud and a severe affront to justice by the 3 stooges – Judicial fraud in conspiracy
The 3 cheats exposed in this article, remain at large, ‘above the law’ self-regulated, lawless and unaccountable, and in aggravated breach of their judicial duties, contrary to the public interest, whilst obtaining money from the taxpayer of which they are not lawfully entitled.
Judges judge, defendants defend.
Boro to install 136m-tall wind turbine at the Riverside Stadium
Teesside Live | Radar row at Middlesbrough FC threatens football wind farm …
The Guardian | Middlesbrough FC: Energy firm sues Durham Tees Valley Airport
BBC |
INVITATION TO COMMENT
What is the purpose of a judge who does not judge, and what would the ordinary man down the pub think?
Lord Justice Arnold, Lord Justice Nugee, the Master of the Rolls, Sir Geoffrey Vos, the Lady Chief Justice, the Prime Minister’s Anti-Corruption Champion, the Attorney General, Secretary of State for Justice and Serious Fraud Office has been invited to comment on this report.
All comments will be published in the public interest.
