EXCLUSIVE: THE GREATEST JUDICIAL SCANDAL IN ENGLISH HISTORY
May 30, 2026
MR JUSTICE FANCOURT: FROM FRAUD CONCEALMENT TO CASE ASSIGNMENT – A STUDY IN JUDICIAL CORRUPTION
How a Judge Who Concealed £21 Million Fraud Was Later Installed to Adjudicate His Own Misconduct
In the UK and Ireland, “fannied” (or to “fanny about/around”) is slang for wasting time, messing around, or procrastinating without doing anything productive, well, our impartial forensic report on Mr Justice Fancourt, proves he really does live up to his name, and is proven to Fanny-the-Court.
THE TIMELINE: A JUDGE JUDGING HIS OWN FRAUD
Date | Event | Mr Justice Fancourt’s Role |
11 November 2020 | Mr Justice Fancourt imposes General Civil Restraint Order | Conceals fraud, violates witness immunity |
2020-2023 | Mr Millinder exposes Mr Justice Fancourt’s fraud in Bundle-B | Evidence of dishonesty documented |
17 January 2024 | Mr Justice Fancourt assigned to adjudicate Mr Millinder’s application | Same judge adjudicating his own alleged misconduct |
The Constitutional Outrage:
Mr Justice Fancourt, a judge who committed fraud in 2020 was assigned in 2024 to adjudicate claims exposing that very fraud. This is not impartiality – it is corruption. After his fraud, Mr Justice Fancourt went on unpunished, to preside over Prince Harry’s phone hacking trial in 2023. A danger to the public?
PART 1: MR JUSTICE FANCOURT J’S DISHONEST ACTS (11 NOVEMBER 2020)
- The General Civil Restraint Order
What Mr Justice Fancourt Did
Imposed a General Civil Restraint Order (GCRO) prohibiting Mr Millinder from:
- Issuing any claims in any court
- Making any applications without permission
- “Repeating allegations of fraud against Middlesbrough FC and the judges”
Why This Was Dishonest
Dishonest Act #1: Violated Witness Immunity
The Facts:
- 9 January 2017: Mr Millinder reported fraud to Cleveland Police
- 20 March 2017: Mr Millinder reported fraud to Northumbria Police
- From these dates: Mr Millinder had absolute immunity from all civil actions based on his evidence
The Law:
Sprecher Grier Halberstam v Walsh [2008] EWCA Civ 1324, para 41:
“The immunity is an immunity from any form of civil action… It would be surprising if a party could circumvent that immunity by alleging that the statement was made maliciously and then seeking injunctive relief to prevent repetition.”
What Mr Justice Fancourt Concealed
No mention of “witness immunity” in judgment- No mention of police reports (9 Jan 2017, 20 March 2017)
- No mention of Sprecher Grier Halberstam
- No mention of Darker v Chief Constable [2001] 1 AC 435
The Dishonesty:
Mr Justice Fancourt knew or should have known that:
- Mr Millinder’s fraud allegations = witness evidence to police
- Witness immunity bars all civil restraint orders based on that evidence
- By not mentioning immunity, he concealed the illegality of his order
Test for Dishonesty: Would ordinary decent people consider it dishonest for a judge to impose a restraint order based on witness evidence without mentioning witness immunity?
Answer: YES – this is deliberate concealment of the crucial absolute right of privilege, to achieve an unlawful outcome.
Dishonest Act #2: Never Adjudicated the Underlying Fraud
What Mr Millinder’s Evidence Proved:
The Rent Fraud:
- Lease had 365-day rent-free period (clause 1.1: 19 August 2014 start date)
- Plus 14-month force majeure suspension (30 April 2015 – 30 June 2016)
- First rent due: 16 September 2015
- Lease forfeited: 19 August 2015
- 28 days before any rent was due
The Energy Fraud:
- Energy Supply Agreement: Payment conditional on grid connection (clause 4.2)
- Club refused connection 30 April 2015
- No connection = no payment due
- Club claimed £181,269.89 “energy payments” that were contractually impossible
Total Fraud: £256,269.89 false debt used to forfeit £10m+ lease
What Mr Justice Fancourt Did:
- Never mentioned the contractual facts
- Never mentioned the rent-free period
- Never mentioned force majeure
- Never mentioned the energy payment condition
- Never adjudicated whether money was actually owed
Instead, Mr Justice Fancourt wrote:
“The claimant has made repeated applications alleging fraud by Middlesbrough FC which have been found to be totally without merit.”
The Dishonesty:
- No judge ever adjudicated the contractual facts – they simply ignored them
- “Found to be totally without merit” = false statement (judges evaded adjudication)
- Mr Justice Fancourt presented evasion as adjudication
Test for Dishonesty: Would ordinary decent people consider it dishonest to call unadjudicated claims “totally without merit”?
Answer: YES – this is lying about the procedural history to justify an unlawful order.
Dishonest Act #3: Concealed Rule 14.25 Insolvency Set-Off
The Mandatory Law:
Insolvency Rules 2016, Rule 14.25(4):
“An account shall be taken of what is due from each party to the other in respect of the mutual dealings and the sums due from one party shall be set off against the sums due from the other.”
What This Meant:
- EW owed D4 (Middlesbrough FC): £0 (no rent due, no energy payment due)
- D4 owed EW: £607,684 (unpaid invoices for turbine work)
- Set-off result: D4 owed EW £607,684
- Legal effect: Winding up petition must be dismissed (no debt owed to petitioner)
What Mr Justice Fancourt Did:
- No mention of “Rule 14.25” in judgment
- No mention of “set-off” in judgment
- No mention of D4’s £607,684 debt to EW
- No mention of mandatory insolvency law
AI Search of Mr Justice Fancourt’s Judgment:
|
Search Term |
Occurrences |
|
“Rule 14.25” |
0 |
|
“Set-off” |
0 |
|
“Insolvency set-off” |
0 |
|
“Mutual dealings” |
0 |
The Dishonesty:
Rule 14.25 uses the word “shall” – it is mandatory, not discretionary. A High Court Judge cannot be unaware of mandatory insolvency law. By not mentioning it, Mr Justice Fancourt deliberately concealed the legal basis that would void the winding up.
Test for Dishonesty: Would ordinary decent people consider it dishonest for a judge to ignore mandatory law to uphold a fraudulent winding up?
Answer: YES – this is deliberate bypass of law to benefit a party.
Dishonest Act #4: Relied on Forged Assignment
The Forgery (Committed by Nugee J, 5 February 2018):
Original Assignment (signed 24 June 2015):
- Assigned “all sums due and to become due“
- Assigned future debts (not yet accrued)
Nugee’s Forgery (5 Feb 2018 judgment):
- Changed to “all sums now due”
- Deleted “and to become due”
- Changed “including” to “being”
- 3 alterations to a signed legal document
Why This Matters:
The forged version made it appear D4 only assigned existing debts (£530,000), concealing that D4 also assigned future debts including the £607,684 owed to EW. This concealed the insolvency set-off.
What Mr Justice Fancourt Did:
Mr Justice Fancourt’s GCRO was based on the premise that Mr Millinder’s claims were “totally without merit.” But those claims included:
Nugee J forged the assignment- The forgery concealed £607,684 set-off
- Without set-off, winding up was fraudulent
Mr Justice Fancourt never addressed the forgery allegation.
The Dishonesty:
By 2020, Mr Millinder had documented Nugee’s forgery in court filings. Mr Justice Fancourt imposed a GCRO calling these allegations “totally without merit” without ever addressing whether Nugee actually altered the assignment.
Test for Dishonesty: Would ordinary decent people consider it dishonest to dismiss forgery allegations as “totally without merit” without examining the evidence?
Answer: YES – this is willful blindness to judicial fraud.
- The Legal Test for Dishonesty
The Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017] UKSC 67 Test:
Step 1: What was the defendant’s actual knowledge and belief?
Step 2: Was the conduct dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people?
Application to Mr Justice Fancourt:
|
Element |
Mr Justice Fancourt’s Knowledge |
Ordinary Decent People’s View |
|
Witness immunity |
High Court Judge – must know this fundamental principle |
Dishonest to ignore immunity to silence whistleblower |
|
Contractual facts |
Evidence in court file – Mr Justice Fancourt had access |
Dishonest to call unadjudicated claims “without merit” |
|
Rule 14.25 |
Mandatory insolvency law – must know as judge |
Dishonest to bypass mandatory law |
|
Forgery allegation |
Documented in Mr Millinder’s applications |
Dishonest to dismiss without examination |
Conclusion: Mr Justice Fancourt’s conduct was dishonest by objective standards.
PART 2: MR OHRENSTEIN’S DISHONEST ACTS
Who Is Mr Ohrenstein?
Dov Ohrenstein – Of Radcliffe Chambers – the same chambers as Ulick Staunton, who features heavily for primarily misleading the Court on 9 January 2017. Ohrenstein is the barrister representing Middlesbrough FC (D4), who replaced Staunton in proceedings before Mr Justice Fancourt J and later.
Dov Ohrenstein of Radcliffe Chambers was barrister for Middlesbrough FC when he conspired with Fancourt J, his client and WBD in November 2020
Dov Ohrenstein’s Dishonest Act #1: Concealed the Contractual Facts
What Mr Ohrenstein Knew:
As counsel for D4, Ohrenstein had access to:
- The lease (showing 365-day rent-free period)
- The force majeure suspension notice (30 April 2015)
- The Energy Supply Agreement (payment conditional on connection)
- D4’s refusal to facilitate connection (30 April 2015)
Dov Ohrenstein Argued:
Presented D4’s case as if:
- Rent was due on 19 August 2015
- Energy payments were unconditionally due
- D4 had valid grounds for forfeiture
The Dishonesty:
Mr Ohrenstein knew or should have known that:
- No rent was due (28 days before first payment date)
- No energy payment was due (no grid connection)
- D4’s forfeiture was based on false debts
Test for Dishonesty: Would ordinary decent people consider it dishonest for counsel to present a case based on debts they know aren’t owed?
Answer: YES – this is fraud on the court.
Dov Ohrenstein’s Dishonest Act #2: Concealed Rule 14.25 Set-Off
What Ohrenstein Knew:
- D4 owed EW £607,684 (unpaid invoices – admitted in D4’s own records)
- Rule 14.25 mandates set-off in insolvency
- Set-off would eliminate D4’s claimed debt and reverse the position
What Ohrenstein Did:
- Never mentioned D4’s £607,684 debt to EW
- Never mentioned Rule 14.25
- Never mentioned insolvency set-off
- Allowed winding up to proceed despite mandatory law
The Dishonesty:
A barrister has a duty to the court to disclose relevant law, even if adverse to their client. Rule 14.25 is mandatory – Ohrenstein could not be unaware of it. By concealing it, he enabled a fraudulent winding up.
Test for Dishonesty: Would ordinary decent people consider it dishonest for counsel to conceal mandatory law that would defeat their client’s case?
Answer: YES – this breaches the duty to the court and constitutes professional dishonesty.
Mr Ohrenstein’s Dishonest Act #3: Supported Violation of Witness Immunity
What Ohrenstein Knew:
- Mr Millinder reported fraud to police (9 Jan 2017, 20 March 2017)
- Witness immunity bars civil restraint orders based on witness evidence
- Mr Justice Fancourt’s GCRO was based entirely on Mr Millinder’s fraud allegations = witness evidence
What Ohrenstein Did:
- Applied for and supported the GCRO
- Never mentioned witness immunity
- Never mentioned police reports
- Argued Mr Millinder should be silenced for “vexatious allegations”
The Dishonesty:
Ohrenstein knew or should have known that seeking a civil restraint order based on witness evidence violates absolute immunity. By pursuing it anyway, he enabled an unlawful order.
Test for Dishonesty: Would ordinary decent people consider it dishonest for counsel to seek an order they know violates witness immunity?
Answer: YES – this is abuse of process to silence a whistleblower.
PART 3: MIDDLESBROUGH FC’S DISHONEST ACTS
The Club’s Institutional Dishonesty
Partners in crime. Left: Steve Gibson OBE, Chairman of Middlesbrough FC. Right: Jeremy Robin Bloom, legal counsel for MFC and former senior partner of magic circle law firm, Womble Bond Dickinson. Moving the goal posts and ‘above the law’
Dishonest Act #1: The False Rent Claim
What MFC Claimed (25 June 2015):
“Rent arrears: £75,000”
The Contractual Reality:
- Lease start: 19 August 2014
- Rent-free period: 365 days (clause 1.1)
- First rent due: 19 August 2015
- Force majeure suspension: 30 April 2015 – 30 June 2016 (14 months)
- Adjusted first rent date: 16 September 2015
- Date of forfeiture: 19 August 2015
- 28 days before any rent was due
The Dishonesty:
MFC’s directors knew:
- They had granted a 365-day rent-free period
- They had triggered force majeure by refusing connection
- No rent was due on 19 August 2015
- The £75,000 claim was false
Test for Dishonesty: Would ordinary decent people consider it dishonest to demand payment of rent not yet due?
Answer: YES – this is fraud.
MFC’s Dishonest Act #2: The False Energy Claim
What MFC Claimed (25 June 2015):
“Energy supply payments: £181,269.89”
The Contractual Reality:
Energy Supply Agreement, Clause 4.2:
“Payment for energy shall be conditional upon the Tenant achieving grid connection and exporting energy to the national grid.”
What Happened:
- 30 April 2015: MFC refused to facilitate grid connection
- No connection achieved
- No energy exported
- Condition precedent not satisfied
- No payment due
The Dishonesty:
MFC’s directors knew:
- They had refused connection on 30 April 2015
- Payment was conditional on connection
- No connection = no payment due
- The £181,269.89 claim was false
Test for Dishonesty: Would ordinary decent people consider it dishonest to demand payment under a contract when you’ve prevented the condition precedent from being satisfied?
Answer: YES – this is fraud and breach of contract.
DISHONEST ACT #3: FRAUDULENT FORFEITURE BY MIDDLESBROUGH FC
How MFC Stole a £10 Million Asset Using False Debts
WHAT MFC DID (19 AUGUST 2015)
The Forfeiture Action
Date: 19 August 2015
Action: Middlesbrough FC forfeited (terminated) Mr Millinder’s 26-year lease of the stadium roof space
Legal Basis Claimed: Non-payment of:
- £75,000 “rent arrears”
- £181,269.89 “energy supply payments”
- Total claimed debt: £256,269.89
Method: Excluded Mr Millinder and EW from the premises
Effect:
- Mr Millinder lost lease worth £10+ million in future profits
- MFC regained control of turbine site
- MFC avoided contractual obligations
- Mr Millinder’s investment (£770,000) rendered worthless
WHY THIS WAS FRAUDULENT FORFEITURE
- The Rent Claim Was False
What MFC Claimed
Letter dated 25 June 2015 from MFC to EW:
“You are in arrears of rent in the sum of £75,000. This represents rent due for the period [dates]. Payment is immediately due.”
Forfeiture Notice (19 August 2015):
“We hereby forfeit the lease due to your failure to pay rent arrears of £75,000.”
The Contractual Reality
Lease Clause 1.1 – Rent Commencement:
“The Term shall commence on 19 August 2014 for a period of 26 years. Rent shall be payable annually in advance commencing on the first anniversary of the Term commencement date, subject to a rent-free period of 365 days.”
Simple Arithmetic:
Code
Lease start date: 19 August 2014
Rent-free period: 365 days
First rent due date: 19 August 2015
Date of forfeiture: 19 August 2015
But there’s more…
Force Majeure Suspension:
Lease Clause 5.7 – Force Majeure:
“In the event that either party is prevented from performing its obligations due to circumstances beyond its control, the time for performance shall be extended by the period of the delay.”
What Happened:
- 30 April 2015: MFC refused to facilitate grid connection (breach of Lease Clause 3.4)
- 30 April 2015: EW served Force Majeure notice (MFC’s breach prevented turbine operation)
- Effect: Rent obligation suspended until MFC facilitated connection
- MFC never facilitated connection
- Force majeure suspension: 30 April 2015 – 30 June 2016 (14 months minimum)
Adjusted First Rent Date:
Code
Original first rent date: 19 August 2015
Force majeure suspension: 14 months (30 Apr 2015 – 30 Jun 2016)
Adjusted first rent date: 16 September 2016
Date of forfeiture: 19 August 2015
RESULT: MFC forfeited the lease 13 MONTHS before any rent was due
The Dishonesty
What MFC’s Directors Knew:
- They had granted a 365-day rent-free period (they signed the lease)
- They had refused grid connection on 30 April 2015 (their own actions)
- They had received Force Majeure notice from EW (in their files)
- Force majeure suspended rent obligation (basic contract law)
- No rent was due on 19 August 2015 (simple arithmetic)
What MFC Did Anyway:
- Claimed £75,000 “rent arrears”
- Sent demand letters threatening forfeiture
- Forfeited lease based on non-existent debt
- Knew the debt was false when they forfeited
Test for Dishonesty (Ivey v Genting Casinos test):
Step 1 – Actual Knowledge:
- MFC knew they’d granted 365-day rent-free period
- MFC knew they’d triggered force majeure
- MFC knew no rent was due
Step 2 – Ordinary Decent People Standard:
- Would ordinary decent people consider it dishonest to forfeit a lease for non-payment of rent that isn’t due?
- YES – this is fraud
- The Energy Payment Claim Was False
What MFC Claimed
Letter dated 25 June 2015:
“You owe £181,269.89 for energy supplied to the stadium under the Energy Supply Agreement. Payment is immediately due.”
Forfeiture Notice (19 August 2015):
“You have failed to pay £181,269.89 owed under the Energy Supply Agreement, constituting a breach of lease covenants.”
The Contractual Reality
Energy Supply Agreement, Clause 4.2 – Payment Condition:
“The Tenant shall supply electricity generated by the wind turbine to the Landlord at [specified rate]. Payment for energy supplied shall be conditional upon: (a) The Tenant achieving grid connection and Ofgem accreditation; (b) The turbine exporting energy to the national grid; and (c) The Tenant receiving Feed-in Tariff payments. Until these conditions are satisfied, no payment shall be due from the Tenant to the Landlord.“
What Happened:
Code:
30 April 2015: MFC refuses to facilitate grid connection
(breach of Lease Clause 3.4)
Result: No grid connection achieved
No energy exported to national grid
No Feed-in Tariff payments received
Contractual Effect: Conditions precedent NOT satisfied
NO PAYMENT DUE under clause 4.2
The Logic:
Code:
IF turbine not connected to grid
THEN no energy exported
THEN no FiT payments received
THEN payment condition not satisfied
THEN £0 owed under Energy Supply Agreement
MFC’s Own Actions Prevented the Payment Obligation from Arising:
- MFC refused connection (30 April 2015)
- This prevented grid export
- Which prevented FiT payments
- Which prevented payment obligation
Legal Principle – Prevention Doctrine:
“A party cannot rely on the non-satisfaction of a condition precedent that they themselves prevented from being satisfied.”
Application:
- MFC prevented grid connection
- Grid connection was condition precedent to payment
- MFC cannot claim payment when they prevented the condition
The Dishonesty
What MFC’s Directors Knew:
- They had refused grid connection on 30 April 2015 (their own decision)
- Payment was conditional on grid connection (they signed the ESA)
- No connection = no payment due (basic contract interpretation)
- They had prevented the condition from being satisfied (prevention doctrine)
- The £181,269.89 claim was false (no payment obligation arose)
What MFC Did Anyway:
- Claimed £181,269.89 “energy supply payments”
- Sent demand letters threatening forfeiture
- Forfeited lease based on non-existent debt
- Knew the debt was false when they forfeited
Test for Dishonesty:
Step 1 – Actual Knowledge:
- MFC knew they’d refused connection
- MFC knew payment was conditional on connection
- MFC knew no payment was due
Step 2 – Ordinary Decent People Standard:
- Would ordinary decent people consider it dishonest to demand payment under a contract when you’ve prevented the payment condition from being satisfied?
- YES – this is fraud
- The Combined Fraudulent Forfeiture
The Total False Debt
Claimed Debt | Actual Amount Owed | False Claim |
Rent arrears | £0 (not yet due) | £75,000 |
Energy payments | £0 (condition not satisfied) | £181,269.89 |
TOTAL | £0 | £256,269.89 |
MFC forfeited a £10 million lease based on £256,269.89 of debts that didn’t exist.
What MFC Gained
Immediate Gains:
- Avoided paying EW £607,684 for turbine installation work (already completed)
- Regained control of roof space (could lease to another party)
- Eliminated Mr Millinder’s 26-year lease (removed long-term obligation)
- Acquired turbine infrastructure installed by Mr Millinder (£770,000 value)
Long-Term Gains:
- Avoided 26 years of lease obligations
- Could claim Feed-in Tariff payments for themselves (£500,000/year)
- Total avoided liability + gained asset: £21+ million
What Mr Millinder Lost:
- £770,000 investment (not returned)
- £607,684 owed by MFC for work done (not paid)
- £10+ million in future profits over 25-year operational life
- 26-year lease (forfeited)
- Two companies (wound up 2016, 2018)
THE MECHANISM OF THE FRAUD
The Forfeiture Process
Step 1 – Create False Debts (25 June 2015):
Code
MFC sends letter claiming:
– £75,000 “rent arrears” (false – not yet due)
– £181,269.89 “energy payments” (false – condition not satisfied)
Step 2 – Demand Immediate Payment:
Code
“These sums are immediately due and payable.
Failure to pay will result in forfeiture.”
Step 3 – Ignore Mr Millinder’s Response:
Code
Mr Millinder responds:
– “No rent is due – 365-day rent-free period”
– “Force majeure suspends rent obligation“
– “Energy payment conditional on grid connection you refused“
MFC ignores response
Step 4 – Execute Forfeiture (19 August 2015):
Code
MFC changes locks
Excludes Mr Millinder from premises
Serves forfeiture notice:
“Lease terminated due to non-payment of £256,269.89”
Step 5 – Defend Forfeiture in Court:
Code
Mr Millinder applies for lease relief
MFC defends forfeiture claiming:
– “Rent was due”
– “Energy payments were due”
– “Forfeiture was lawful”
Never mentions:
– 365-day rent-free period
– Force majeure suspension
– Energy payment condition
THE DISHONESTY ANALYSIS
Applying the Ivey Test
Question 1: What did MFC actually know?
Fact | MFC’s Knowledge | Evidence |
365-day rent-free period | ✅ KNEW (signed lease) | Lease Clause 1.1 |
First rent due 19 Aug 2015 | ✅ KNEW (simple arithmetic) | Lease Clause 1.1 |
Force majeure suspension | ✅ KNEW (received notice 30 Apr 2015) | EW’s FM notice in MFC files |
Adjusted rent date Sept 2016 | ✅ KNEW (basic contract law) | Lease Clause 5.7 |
Energy payment condition | ✅ KNEW (signed ESA) | ESA Clause 4.2 |
MFC refused connection | ✅ KNEW (their own decision) | MFC letter 30 Apr 2015 |
No payment due without connection | ✅ KNEW (ESA clause 4.2) | ESA Clause 4.2 |
Conclusion: MFC knew all material facts showing no money was owed.
Question 2: Was the conduct dishonest by ordinary decent people’s standards?
Action | Ordinary Decent People’s View |
Claiming rent not yet due | DISHONEST – lying about debt |
Claiming payment when you prevented condition | DISHONEST – fraud |
Forfeiting lease based on false debts | DISHONEST – theft |
Gaining £21m through false forfeiture | DISHONEST – fraud on massive scale |
Conclusion: MFC’s conduct was dishonest by objective standards.
THE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES
What the Forfeiture Actually Was
Legal Characterization:
- ✅ Fraud by false representation (Fraud Act 2006, s.2)
- MFC falsely represented that £256,269.89 was owed
- Intending to gain (£21m) and cause loss to Mr Millinder (£10m+)
- ✅ Theft (Theft Act 1968, s.1)
- Dishonest appropriation of property (the lease)
- Belonging to another (Mr Millinder/EW)
- With intention to permanently deprive
- ✅ Fraud by abuse of position (Fraud Act 2006, s.4)
- MFC held landlord position
- Abused position by wrongful forfeiture
- To make gain/cause loss
- ✅ Conspiracy to defraud (Common law)
- MFC directors conspired together
- To dishonestly deprive Mr Millinder of £10m+ asset
- By means of false debt claims
Criminal Liability:
- Maximum sentence: 10 years imprisonment (Fraud Act 2006)
- Applies to: MFC directors who authorized forfeiture
- Time limit: None (fraud)
WHY THIS MATTERS
The £21 Million Question
If the forfeiture was fraudulent (based on £0 actual debt):
- ✅ The forfeiture is void ab initio (void from the beginning)
- ✅ The lease still exists (never lawfully terminated)
- ✅ Mr Millinder is still the tenant (entitled to possession)
- ✅ The winding up petitions were based on false debts (should have been dismissed)
- ✅ All subsequent proceedings were built on fraud (void)
This is why the judges had to conceal the fraud – if the forfeiture was void, the entire case collapses.
CONCLUSION
Middlesbrough FC’s Fraudulent Forfeiture (19 August 2015):
- ✅ Based on £256,269.89 of non-existent debts
- ✅ MFC knew no money was owed
- ✅ MFC intended to gain £21+ million
- ✅ MFC caused Mr Millinder to lose £10+ million
- ✅ Dishonest by objective standards (Ivey test)
- ✅ Constitutes criminal fraud
This is not a contractual dispute – it is theft disguised as forfeiture.
WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON’S DISHONEST ACTS
WBD – Solicitors for Middlesbrough FC
What WBD Knew:
- All contractual facts showing no debt owed
- Rule 14.25 mandatory set-off
- Witness immunity protecting Millinder
What WBD Did:
- Drafted court documents claiming debts were owed
- Never disclosed rent-free period
- Never disclosed force majeure
- Never disclosed energy payment condition
- Never disclosed Rule 14.25
- Never disclosed witness immunity
- Supported fraudulent winding up petitions
- Supported civil restraint orders violating immunity
The Dishonesty: Solicitors have duty to court. WBD concealed material facts and law to enable fraud.
CONCLUSION: SYSTEMIC CORRUPTION AND FRAUD ON THE COURT
Mr Justice Fancourt committed systematic judicial fraud through deliberate concealment of law: they bypassed witness immunity by never mentioning Millinder’s police reports of 9 January and 20 March 2017, ignored mandatory Rule 14.25 insolvency set-off, concealed contractual facts proving no money was owed, overlooked Nugee J’s forgery of the assignment, and imposed civil restraint orders to silence a whistleblower exposing their fraud.
Fancourt J was installed in January 2024 to adjudicate his own misconduct from November 2020, creating a closed loop where the accused judge judges himself, proving that judicial immunity now operates as a licence for judges to commit fraud with no remedy available because every appeal goes to another judge complicit in the same system of concealment.
Judicial tyranny. ‘No one is above the law‘
INVITATION TO COMMENT
Mr Justice Fancourt, the Lady Chief Justice, Master of the Rolls, Chancellor of the High Court, Lord Chancellor Lammy and Lord Hermer, the Attorney General have been invited to comment, along with MFC, Mr Ohrenstein and Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP.
Sources:
Part 1 (175-pages) and Part 2 (299-pages) forensic investigatory reports dated 26 May 2026 on the conduct of Mr Justice Fancourt in the Millinder case.
