Sir Geoffrey Vos. Master of the Rolls
The application was made under the guise of the void, without jurisdiction false instrument Extended Civil Restraint order which was deployed to conceal fraud upon the court and maladministration in deliberate failure by the court to administer the law within insolvency proceedings. Geoffrey Vos. Sir Geoffrey Vos.
Paragraph 3 of the application notice before Sir Geoffrey Vos
“Determination of fraudulent non disclosure and misrepresentation and to vary and set aside orders accordingly, granting relief appropriately in remedy of miscarriage of justice against the malicious WUPs”
“WUP” means winding up petition, referring to the fraudulent winding up of both EW and EEI and Mr Millinder’s right, ex debito justitiae to have set aside those void winding up orders founded by fundamental and irredeemable defect in the court deliberately failing to apply mandatory insolvency set off knowing of the mutual dealings between EW and MFC and EEI and MFC.
The continuation sheet paragraph 1
“…for the Court to consider all of the facts and to make an order of its own initiative, setting aside orders that the Claimant identifies as having been made improperly and founded by fraud”
The continuation sheet paragraph 5 cited the judgment by Nugee J on 05/02/2018 that the MFC demand is false
“5. In essence, the Claimant contends that the primary argument contained in the Statutory Demand of 6th January 2017 is the same primary argument linked to the reason why the First Defendant cannot possibly establish any claim against either EWMFC, EEI or the Claimant himself and it is submitted that the fact has already been established and tried by Mr Justice Nugee during the first hearing on notice on 5th February 2018. For clarity, the Claimant refers to that passage from Mr Justice Nugee’s Judgment;
“3. In essence, a company called Empowering Wind MFC Ltd, which was a special purpose vehicle and was, I believe, a subsidiary of EEI, negotiated with the Applicant who has appeared by Mr Staunton, that is Middlesbrough Football and Athletic Company {1986} Ltd, which I will call Middlesbrough, for a suite of agreements under which it would, in effect, erect a wind turbine on a carpark next to Middlesbrough’s stadium, the benefit to Middlesbrough being not only in the shape of an annual rent, but also the delivery of free electricity, and the benefit to Empowering Wind, or EW as I will call it, being to be able to generate more electricity which it could feed into the national grid and receive a tariff for. In the event, that project did not succeed. 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”
It was clearly evidenced that based on the demand that was not owed, because force majeure suspended any obligation to pay whatsoever, MFC demanded payment and used that to unlawfully forfeit. The mutual dealings and the EW claim that was to be mandatorily set off against MFC’s £256,269.89 unwarranted demand arose from that.
The continuation sheet, paragraphs 7 & 8 of the application notice
“7. It is further submitted that the Claimant’s primary argument was again spelled out on Page 2 of the N244 Application in its Originating Application of 15th November 2017. That Claimant refers to that sealed Application; EX1a – 8690 sealed & complete application form and quotes the relevant passage;
The Energy Supply Agreement of which £4,031,664.80 is sought from is conditional
“The Claimant refers to Clause 3.4.2 of the Energy Supply Agreement dated 7th November 2013 {Exhibit 1) of which £4,031,664.80 of the Middlesbrough Football Club Proof of Debt relates.
The Energy Supply Agreement is a conditional contract, subject to (full satisfaction of) the conditions precedent set out in Clause 2. Those conditions encompassed full satisfaction of (by Tenant), the Connection Agreement and, Commissioning of the wind turbine. Middlesbrough Football Club {Landlord) refused to complete the Agreement (Exhibit 3) with Northern Powergrid, the Distribution Network Operator in February 2015 so that the connection for the wind turbine could be established. Condition 2.1 of the Energy Supply Agreement could not be fulfilled due to actions of the Landlord in refusing that connection to customer owned substation assets.
The actions of the Landlord caused substantial losses to the Claimant, resulting in the insolvency of its subsidiary. The Start Date of the Energy Supply Agreement is the date upon which the conditions precedent in Clause 2 are satisfied. There was no Start Date, due to the actions of the Landlord in preventing the same connection from being established and therefore the Claimant asserts that the proof of debt, submitted to the Official Receiver is a false misrepresentation“.
“8. The Claimant contends therefore that it is abundantly clear that the primary argument is linked to the connection related documents the Defendants withheld from the ex-parte hearing, also linked to the false misrepresentations and that same argument had already been identified by Mr Justice Nugee on 5th February 2018 and that therefore it cannot reasonably be disputed that the actions of the Defendants were of dishonest intent to cause substantial losses from the wind turbine project the Claimant had invested in to receive what were otherwise, fully ascertainable income derived from the sale of electricity to energy offtakers via the OFGEM Feed in Tariff Scheme for the 1.5MW wind turbine. The revenue, net of interest, exceeds £9.2 million”.
It was all spelled out for Sir Geoffrey Vos in the simple 5-page application notice itself. The application asked the Court to try the fraud and to exercise its duty of inquiry in setting aside the fraudulently obtained winding up order which was void ab initio in any event, and the winding up order of EW which was likewise void ab initio.
Acting with malicious intent and genuine bias, Vos affronted the law and failed to do anything whatsoever apart from to have sustained the void, without jurisdiction restraint order founded by their own lawless abuse and maladministration.
