Our cases
In the public interest, the interests of justice, for the good of our country and our future generations Intelligence UK Investigations (“IUK”) litigates high profile cases of complex fraud and corruption where there are important public interest points of law or principle.
IUK’s focus is on high profile cases that will capture media attention where we have established prima facie fraud through forensic investigation and in particular, cases where the judiciary, lawyers or public officials appear to be scheming to cover up, or to obstruct the course of justice.
IUK is truly an advocate of open justice, the English rule of law and office holder accountability. Where the establishment covers up, we expose them.
Restoring the rule of law & holding the unaccountable to account
Two Landmark Cases Challenging Judicial Process in England & Wales
Intelligence UK Investigations (“IUK“) is currently pursuing two significant cases before the English courts, both raising fundamental questions about judicial accountability, procedural fairness, and the proper administration of public and insolvency law.
Case 1: Millinder v MFC & the UK State – Insolvency Set-Off and Witness Immunity
Background:
IUK acquired the legal rights to a multi-million pound claim originally belonging to Paul Millinder, a wind farm developer whose companies—Empowering Wind MFC Ltd (EW) and Earth Energy Investments LLP (EEI)—were wound up following disputed debt claims by Middlesbrough Football & Athletic Company (1986) Ltd.
THE PERPETRATORS: Left: Bulkhaul Shipping Container Tycoon and Chairman – Steve Gibson OBE. Right: Robin Bloom – Gibson’s General Legal Counsel and Secretary of Middlesbrough FC. How the site was supposed to look – before they defeated the contracts
The Core Legal Issues:
- The Contractual Facts
Mr Millinder’s case centres on the assertion that no money was contractually owed to Middlesbrough FC at the time they demanded payment and forfeited a 26-year lease for a wind turbine project. IUK contends that:
- The lease contained a force majeure clause suspending rent obligations during planning delays beyond EW’s control
- An invoice for energy supply (£181,269.89) was issued before contractual conditions precedent were satisfied
- The forfeiture of the lease on 19 August 2015 was therefore wrongful, giving rise to substantial damages claims
- Insolvency Set-Off – The Mandatory Rule Never Applied
Central to IUK’s case is Rule 14.25 of the Insolvency Rules 2016, which mandates that where mutual debts exist between a creditor and a company in liquidation, they must be set off before any winding-up order is made.
IUK’s position is that:
- EW had a quantified claim exceeding £9.2 million against Middlesbrough FC arising from the wrongful forfeiture
- EEI had a claim for circa £770,000 based on an assignment of Mr Millinder’s investment
- These cross-claims should have extinguished Middlesbrough FC’s purported debts entirely
- The liquidators and the court failed to apply the mandatory set-off rule, resulting in the fraudulent deprivation of creditors’ statutory rights
IUK alleges that this failure amounts to acts done “in fraud of the bankrupt laws” and are void as contrary to public policy, citing Supreme Court authority in Belmont Park Investments Pty Ltd v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Ltd [2011] UKSC 38.
- Witness Immunity – An Unadjudicated Defence
IUK further contends that Mr Millinder has been subject to absolute witness immunity from civil suit since he first gave evidence to police on 20 March 2017 and subsequently in court proceedings from November 2017 onward.
Relying on House of Lords authority (Watson v M’Ewan [1905] AC 480) and the Court of Appeal decision in Sprecher Grier Halberstam LLP v Martin Walsh [2008] EWCA Civ 1324, IUK argues that:
- Witness immunity protects individuals from any form of civil action in respect of evidence given in legal proceedings
- All civil restraint orders made against Mr Millinder (including a Section 42 vexatious litigant order) were therefore made without jurisdiction
- These orders are void and should be set aside
The Application for Declaratory Judgment (21 April 2025):
On 21 April 2025, IUK applied under CPR 40.20 in the King’s Bench Division for declaratory relief, seeking judicial determination that:
- Mr Millinder has been absolutely immune from suit since 20 March 2017
- All restraint orders against him are void
- The winding-up orders against EW and EEI were made in breach of mandatory insolvency set-off rules and are void
As of today’s date, this application has not been listed for hearing.
The Hearing Before Adam Johnson J (11 February 2026):
On 11 February 2026, IUK appeared before Mr Justice Adam Johnson in the Chancery Division concerning a separate Part 8 claim issued on 29 August 2025.
The hearing did not address the substantive issues outlined above (contractual terms, set-off, or witness immunity). Instead, the judge ruled on a threshold jurisdictional point: whether the proceedings were brought in breach of the vexatious litigant order against Mr Millinder.
Mr Justice Johnson concluded that the claim was brought on behalf of Mr Millinder or under his direction, and therefore dismissed it as a nullity without addressing the merits. The claim was certified as “totally without merit.”
IUK’s Position:
IUK maintains that:
- The assignment of rights to IUK was valid and should permit the company to litigate independently
- The substantive legal arguments—particularly regarding insolvency set-off and witness immunity—have never been judicially determined
- There is no reference to “set-off” or “Rule 14.25” in any of the judgments in Mr Millinder’s case, despite these being central to his claims
- The repeated use of restraint orders and “totally without merit” certifications has been deployed to prevent adjudication of the core issues
Case 2: Perseus Ventures Limited – LPA Receivers, Barclays Bank, and Alleged Fraud
Background:
Perseus Ventures Limited (“PVL”), a BVI property company, is pursuing claims arising from an alleged £675,000 fraud involving a forged lease on a riverside property at 94 Rope Street, London.
THE PERPETRATORS: Left: David Foskett one of the Joint LPA Receivers. Right: John Duffy, legal director of magic circle law firm, Addleshaw Goddard LLP
The Allegations:
- Suzan Caryl Cohen (also known as Susan Carol Veale) allegedly forged a 10-year lease on the property while an undischarged bankrupt
- She operated under multiple aliases and illegally acted as a company director, contrary to the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986
- Cohen collected approximately £675,000 in rental income that should have been received by PVL’s LPA Receivers
- The LPA Receivers appointed by Barclays Bank allegedly failed in their fiduciary duty to collect “rent and all other income derived from such property” as required by their deed of appointment
The Legal Issue:
PVL contends that the LPA Receivers and Barclays Bank:
- Knew of their obligation to receive rental income from the property
- Failed to take effective action to recover the rent, which was instead collected by Cohen/Veale
- Refused to provide a completion statement when the property was sold for £841,000 on 5 September 2024
- The rental income, if properly collected, would have redeemed the outstanding loan of £456,547.63
Judicial Treatment:
PVL’s applications have been certified as “totally without merit” by successive judges:
- Master Brown
- Collins-Rice J
- Murray J
- Soole J (who made an Extended Civil Restraint Order on 17 December 2025)
The Hearing Before Dexter Dias J (17 June 2026):
On 17 June 2026, represented by barrister Graham Smith, PVL argued before Mr Justice Dexter Dias that the Extended Civil Restraint Order made against it is void for want of jurisdiction.
PVL’s case raises a critical question: Can judges lawfully conceal allegations of fraud and wrongdoing through the use of restraint orders without first determining the substantive issues raised?
IUK’s investigation uncovered fresh evidence, including:
- A recorded telephone call from 18 August 2023 in which David Foskett of Copping Joyce (one of the LPA Receivers) admitted that “all the rent has been going to Suzanne Veale“
- Correspondence from the LPA Receivers dated 9 May 2018 acknowledging their duty to collect rent
PVL contends that the successive “totally without merit” certifications were made without addressing the binding contractual and fiduciary duties owed by the LPA Receivers or the evidence of their admitted failure to perform those duties.
Judgment is currently reserved.
Impartial forensic investigations & high level reporting on complex fraud cases
The Common Thread: Misuse of “Totally Without Merit” and Civil Restraint Orders
Both cases raise serious questions about the proper use of civil restraint mechanisms. IUK’s investigative work has identified what it describes as a pattern of:
-
Failure to address substantive arguments: Core legal issues—particularly those involving alleged fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and mandatory statutory rules—are not being judicially determined before cases are dismissed as “totally without merit”
-
Violation of Court of Appeal guidance: In R (Grace) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 1091 and R (Wasif) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 82, the Court of Appeal established that:
- A case should only be certified as “totally without merit” if it is “bound to fail”—not merely because permission is refused
- Judges must take “peculiar care” to ensure all substantive arguments are individually addressed
- Where there is any real doubt, the claimant must be given the benefit of that doubt
-
Use of restraint orders to silence legitimate claims: IUK contends that restraint orders are being misused to suppress claims raising allegations of judicial misconduct, fraud, and systemic failures in the administration of justice
Uncovering the cover up by finding the facts they don’t want to
Why These Cases Matter
By combining these techniques, AI acts as a workforce multiplier, allowing our investigators to move beyond obvious, linear evidence and to uncover the sophisticated, hidden networks, and the evidence and facts that define modern criminal and corporate wrongdoing. We often create justice, when there wouldn’t otherwise be.
If you have a case you would like us to consider, or if you need help dealing with a complex issue, get in touch with us today.