UK corruption

Sir Geoffrey Vos & corruption of justice fraud concealment

Sir Geoffrey Vos - Master of the Rolls is an oath breaking imposter.  Master of the Rolls concealing fraud.  Geoffrey Vos.

Lords of fraud: Sir Geoffrey Vos, AKA, Geoffrey Charles Vos of Netherley Hall Estate, Malvern, the Master of the Rolls, head of the civil justice system for England & Wales is, we allege, the penultimate Lord of fraud. In this article we provide hard evidence of judicial corruption by Geoffrey Vos, the second highest judge in England.

Table of Contents

Sir Geoffrey Vos – the Master of the Rolls concealing fraud to shield corrupt lawyers from prosecution

On 31st July 2020 Sir Geoffrey Vos was appointed as Master of the Rolls by the Queen. The Master of the Rolls is head of civil justice and the UK’s second highest ranking Judge, with the first being the Lord Chief Justice, Ian Burnett of Maldon. You would think he would lead by example, exuding outstanding knowledge of the law, integrity and advocation of impartiality at the highest level to match his annual salary of £214,165, paid by the taxpayer. On the contrary.

Under Boris Johnson’s kleptocracy, the United Kingdom has become a rogue state, the administration of justice lacks impartiality and there is no separation of powers between the courts and central government. Sir Geoffrey Vos. Master of the Rolls.

Sir Geoffrey Vos affronted the long established doctrine on no res judicata in insolvency proceedings

In Re Fraser, ex parte Central Bank of London [1892] 2 QB 633, CA Lord Justice Kay said:

“It is old law in bankruptcy that, neither upon an attempt to prove a debtnor upon a petition for an adjudication of bankruptcy or a receiving order against a debtoris a judgment against him for the debt conclusive. In Ex parte Bryant (1), Lord Eldon said: ” Proof upon a judgment will not stand merely upon that, if there is not a debt due in ‘ truth and reality,’ for which the consideration must be looked to.” Can this judgment be treated as conclusive in bankruptcy because the debtor has unsuccessfully attempted to set it aside ? I think not and I cannot see how the matter is any more res judicata because there has been an unsuccessful appeal to this CourtI agree in all that the Master of the Rolls has said on this point.

Fraser was a judgment debtor, who had exhaustively challenged the imposition of a judgment debt upon him, but without success. Fraser’s application to set aside the judgment debt had failed before a Master (twice), Judge (once)Divisional Court (once) and Court of Appeal (once), yet this presented no bar in the bankruptcy Court.

Sir Geoffrey Vos defeated law established since the early 18th century to assist the offenders in using the courts to defraud

At paragraph 100 of his predetermined judgment where he failed to try the fraud the application specifically sought to try, whilst asking Vos to exercise his duty of inquiry in the insolvency court by removing the £4.1 million fraudulent claim used to defraud creditors, the now Master of the Rolls said this:

“100. As I have already made clearthe circumstances in which a court can set aside or even investigate, the correctness of orders, save in the context of properly constituted appeals, are very strictly limitedOur courts rightly set great store by the finality of the orders that are made after argumentThe option for taking two bites at the cherry are limited indeed

Sir Geoffrey Vos, Master of the Rolls & “a lead role in an aggravated conspiracy”

Sir Geoffrey Vos has been impairing law established since the 18th century, turning from independent referee of the match to striker for Middlesbrough FC, making up for what they lack on the pitch with misconduct of the rules and foul play to ensure the ball was always in their court.

All UK judges must take a solemn oath, swearing to act “without fear or favour, affection or ill-will”.

We allege that Sir Geoffrey Vos had breached his oath, acting with favour and ill-will, concealing fraud committed by dishonest lawyers, favouring one side and assisting an offender, knowing of the fraud committed.

The constitutional oath of the judiciary was implemented in 1868. Known as the Promissory Oaths Act, this law is designed to protect civilians from abuse of powers and to ensure that justice is administered fairly and impartially.

Bizarrely, we found after investigation that this law that is never enforced. Judges that breach their oaths in the UK are never brought to justice, they are free to continue in office, completely unregulated. We have found that many of England’s judges have become lawless, a law unto themselves.

Sir Geoffrey Vos the Master of the Rolls was concealing proven fraud

In the case of Millinder v Middlesbrough Football & Athletic Company (1986) Ltd we were shown the application notice made by Mr Millinder when Sir Geoffrey Vos was Chancellor of the High Court. The application notice asked the court for a fraud trial.

Page 3, paragraph 5 through to paragraph 7 of Mr Millinder’s application notice referred to a finding by Mr Justice Nugee, a judge of the same court when on 5th February 2018 the Judge found that no money was owed to Middlesbrough FC.

Paragraph 6 of the application notice referred to “collateral estoppel” applying, as Mr Millinder’s central argument had been tried and proven by Mr Justice Nugee.

Paragraph 7 referred to the fraudulent claim of £4,031,664.80, stating that:

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 turbineMiddlesbrough 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 satisfiedThere 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”.

The application that came before Sir Geoffrey Vos asked him to set aside the false proof of debt claim which was found to have been false by Mr Justice Nugee on 5th February 2018. Anyone reading the application notice, could determine that no money was owed.

Paragraph 8 of the application notice referred again to the same judgment of Mr Justice Nugee on 5th February 2018 where he found that Middlesbrough FC had unlawfully forfeited the Lease and that no rent or energy supply payment was owed.

“A quantified claim for rent” – knowing that neither rent or energy supply could possibly be owed

At paragraph 105 of his judgment, Sir Geoffrey Vos said this:

On 25th June 2015, Middlesbrough invoiced Empowering Wind MFC for a quantified claim for rent in the sum of £256,269.89.

Sir Geoffrey Vos

£181,269.89 was for a demand comprising an invoice for energy supply. Sir Geoffrey Vos knew that no rent was owed and that there was no “entitlement to agreed output” and that any “invoicing & payment” was contractually prohibited.

£75,000 was for rent, when it had previously been decided by Mr Justice Nugee, a High Court Judge of the same court, that force majeure absolved any liability on the developer to pay rent whatsoever.

Considering that citations from the 05/02/2018 judgment by Mr Justice Nugee was included in the continuation sheet of the application notice itself it is reasonable to conclude that Sir Geoffrey Vos was acting dishonestly, and with intent to conceal the fact that Middlesbrough FC unlawfully forfeited the Lease, undermining the previous finding of Nugee J.

It was the £4.1 million claim that the application before Sir Geoffrey Vos sought to try, specifically asking him to deal with it, he declined to do so.

Sir Geoffrey Vos had before him proof that Middlesbrough FC’s barrister had retracted the claims

Disturbingly, we were shown Ulick Staunton’s skeleton argument dated 12th November 2018. Ulick Staunton acted for Middlesbrough FC for the hearing that came before Sir Geoffrey Vos.

Paragraph 37 of Staunton’s (page 12 of his skeleton) contains his written testimony that his client, Middlesbrough FC, did not bring any claim against Mr Millinder or any of his companies, save for a £25,000 fraudulently obtained sum which was extinguished by the £770,000 investment assigned from Empowering (“EW”) to Earth Energy (“EEI”):

Sir Geoffrey Vos, Master of the Rolls, Geoffrey Vos, Head of civil justice,

The application that came before Sir Geoffrey Vos on 8th February 2019 asked him to try the fraud, the claim, exceeding £4.1 million that Mr Justice Nugee had already found to be false, whilst Middlesbrough FC’s own barrister also retracted the claim. Master of the Rolls

Sir Geoffrey Vos asked Staunton, counsel for MFC to retract and replace his skeleton after finding he “U-turned” on MFC’s claims

Even more disturbingly, we were shown an email to the clerk to Sir Geoffrey Vos and to the clerk to Mr Justice Arnold (now Lord Justice Arnold) dated 30th November 2018.

The email exhibited below was sent to the private secretary to the Chancellor, as he then was. The email made Sir Geoffrey absolutely aware of the false claims brought by Middlesbrough FC. The email, as evidenced below, referred to the fact that Mr Staunton had retracted the claims on 12th November 2018, in the skeleton he filed in court.

Master of the Rolls, Sir Geoffrey Vos was concealing proven fraud.  Geoffrey Vos.
The email of 30th November 2018 to Sir Geoffrey Vos and other senior clerks at the Royal Courts of Justice in London

Shortly after receiving the email above, Sir Geoffrey Vos asked Mr Staunton to retract and replace his skeleton of 12th November 2018, less his own admission that his clients “don’t bring any claims”, knowing that they had claimed £256,269.89, increasing to £541,308.89, then to £4,111,874.75.

Sir Geoffrey Vos, Master of the Rolls, head of civil justice was concealing a £4.1 million claim.

On 9th January 2017 Ulick Staunton admitted in Court that no claims could be established for energy supply payments

24-days prior to his instructing solicitor claiming over £4 million for energy supply and £80,000 in rent that was never owed, it is evidenced on the transcript below that Ulick Staunton knew that no claim for energy supply could be established because “force majeure” has effect. Notwithstanding that the energy supply agreement is conditional and its conditions were not fulfilled.

The single most critical part of the case is the fact that force majeure suspended the 365-day period provided for in clause 7 of the lease (rent), free of rent, from which there was an obligation to commission the wind turbine. Middlesbrough FC did in fact refuse the connection on 30th April 2015, preventing the turbine being commissioned.

Transcript of the 9th January 2017 without notice injunction hearing by Middlesbrough FC

Julian Gill, Master of the Rolls, Geoffrey Vos, Womble Bond Dickinson, Middlesbrough FC, Ulick Staunton,

It is proven that on the 9th of January 2017, it was Ulick Staunton’s actual state of mind as to the knowledge of the facts and the circumstances that he knew that of the first claim made by Middlesbrough FC, £181,269.89, which was for energy supply, was not owed.

Knowing that the vast majority of the first of the 3 substantially different claims brought against EW was for energy supply, Staunton sought to conceal that fact, stating that there was “the invoice for rents”, which he knew were not owed either, which is why he lied and said there was “no other reference to force majeure in the lease“.

It is therefore evidential that at all times thereafter, Staunton knew that the £4.1 million claim brought by his client was entirely false. Staunton likewise attended hearings on 21st December 2017 and then on 26th March 2018 where EEI and Mr Millinder sought to have the court act lawfully in removing the fraud by false representation sustained to make gains for Middlesbrough FC and their lawyers, whilst causing very serious loss to the EW creditors.

On 5th February 2018, Staunton attended the hearing when Mr Justice Nugee found that 172-pages of witness evidence had been withheld from the without notice injunction hearing by Middlesbrough FC and their lawyers in breach of their legal duty to disclose.

The deliberate (malicious) failure of the Court to apply the law of insolvency set off

There was a twofold pre-meditated (deliberate) failure of the Insolvency & Companies Court to administer the law, mandatory insolvency set off when it was their duty to have done so. Both EW and EEI had cross claims against Middlesbrough FC which substantially exceeded, and therefore extinguished any claim they could try and bring against either companies.

In 2020, the Supreme Court affirmed that:

the statutory regime for set-off in insolvency, now to be found in IR 14.25 operates upon an altogether more comprehensive and rigorous basis. First, it applies to every type of pre-liquidation mutual dealing, and also to secured, contingent and future debts: see IR 14.25(1), (2), (6) and (7). Secondly, whereas legal or equitable set-off is essentially optional, taking effect only if the cross-claim is pleaded as a defence to the claim, insolvency set-off is mandatory, and takes effect upon the commencement of the insolvency (the “cut-off date”). It is said to be self-executing, and for some purposes the original cross-claims are replaced by a single claim for the balance: see IR 14.25(3) and (4). Thus the separate cross-claims may no longer be assigned after the cut-off date: see Stein v Blake [1996] AC 243. But the separate claims may survive for other purposes: see Wight v Eckhardt Marine GmbH [2003] UKPC 37; [2004] 1 AC 147, paras 26-27 per Lord Hoffmann. One example is the balance of contingent or prospective claims under IR 14.25(5). Within the liquidation, a net balance owing to the creditor must be pursued by proof of debt in the ordinary way. The liquidator is entitled to be paid the full amount of any net balance owing by the creditor, and may exercise any available remedies for its quantification and recovery, including litigation, arbitration or ADR: see IR 14.25(4) and (5).

Rule 14.25(3) affirms that only after application of set off can a creditor go on to claim to prove for a debt against the company. Whereas, if the company is owed money after mandatory set off, the balance owed to the company must be paid to the liquidator as a dividend to company creditors.

Were it not for corrupt and improper administration of justice, neither the c£4.1 million claim, nor the £25,000 claim against EEI would have come about, for Middlesbrough FC never had claims against either of Mr Millinder’s companies.

Sir Geoffrey Vos knew that Ulick Staunton accepted that the cross claim extinguished the false EEI £25,000 petition debt

Sir Geoffrey Vos had before him categoric proof that Staunton had admitted himself that the £770,000 assigned investment vested in EEI extinguished the liability to pay their £25,000. The now Master of the Rolls knew that there was a claim to be mandatorily set off.

Sir Geoffrey Vos, Master of the Rolls concealing fraud committed by Ulick Staunton.

Sir Geoffrey Vos affronted the law that affirms that the assignment of the investment is effective from 30th of June 2015 when it was served on Middlesbrough FC and therefore he knew that neither EW or EEI was insolvent. He did so, once again, to assist the offenders in advancing their fraud whilst preventing justice being served on them.

The simplicity of the proven case for unlawful forfeiture of the lease by Middlesbrough FC

The judicial officers involved, including Sir Geoffrey Vos, who was most culpable in the conspiracy in our view, were only too well aware that mutual dealings arose on 30th of April 2015 when Middlesbrough FC refused the connection for the turbine. Thereafter, force majeure suspended any liability to pay either rent or energy supply. Ordinarily the first installment of rent (£15,000) would have fallen due on 17th of September 2015.

The period of force majeure occurred just 96-days into the 365-day period free of rent from which to have commissioned the wind turbine. It was not until 23rd December 2014 that EW successfully resolved the issue, which prevented the turbine from being commissioned, caused by a third party beyond reasonable control of the developer (EW).

On the 23rd December 2014 EW had the benefit of 296-days free of rent from which to commission the turbine, taking it to 17th September 2015. It was not that

Middlesbrough FC unlawfully forfeited the lease on the 19th of August 2015, proving that even if they did not refuse the connection, they still unlawfully forfeited the lease. Therefore the claim against Middlesbrough FC, exceeding £8 million in loss from the wind turbine project that would have otherwise been constructed and commissioned, extinguished any claim they could ever bring.

It was the judicial officer’s own maladministration which, aided and abetted this conspiracy to defraud by corrupt lawyers, judges and Anthony Hannon, the Official Receiver of London, who was installed as liquidator of EW. They were all colluding together to defraud and to prevent justice being served on Middlesbrough FC and their lawyers.

At paragraph 103 of his judgment, Sir Geoffrey Vos said this:

“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”

Sir Geoffrey Vos

Sir Geoffrey Vos was served a cross examination by Mr Millinder asking why he lied and concealed the fraud Vos replied “no comment”

We were also shown the full cross examination document presented to Sir Geoffrey Vos by Mr Millinder on 14th March 2021.

The excerpt below from that cross examination refers to the salient questions around the false statements Sir Geoffrey Vos made to conceal the fraudulent claims.

Sir Geoffrey Vos - Master of the Rolls corrupt UK judges.  Geoffrey Vos. Julian Gill.  Head of civil justice.

Sir Geoffrey Vos knew that the energy supply agreement was conditional and that the first installment of rent (£15,000) was not payable until 17th September 2015.

Sir Geoffrey Vos knew that Middlesbrough FC unlawfully forfeited on 19th August 2015, but yet he was still brazen enough to lie in his own judgment by stating that the fraudulent claim in the sum of £256,269.89 was a “quantified claim for rent”, whist concealing the claim for over £4.1 million which was from the same source as the first. What about the claim in the middle for £541,308.89?

Mr Millinder phoned the Master of the Rolls office asking for “accountability” – The 5-minute recording

Sir Geoffrey Vos, the head of the UK’s civil justice system, the second highest Judge in the country, is proven to have been concealing fraud to assist dishonest lawyers in using the courts to defraud and evade justice.

If the second highest judge in the country, responsible for the entire civil justice system is proven to have behaved in this way, what are the rest of them doing?

We asked Sir Geoffrey Vos to comment, but his response was “no comment”

Watch our 22-minute video explaining the simplicity of the case / It was proven before the corrupt judiciary became involved

Courts and judges are paid by the taxpayer to administer law and justice, fairly and impartially. We have provided conclusive proof that the highest echelons of the English judiciary are entirely corrupt and lawless. They “cover for one another”, whilst targeting victims of fraud who come to the courts to seek justice.

Help us to help you. Like, comment and share this article far and wide. There’s a cure for corruption and that is, transparency. Knowledge is power.

About author

We are Intelligence UK International, a leading global private intelligence agency dedicated to investigating and combatting domestic corruption and economic crime where law enforcement fail. Bringing you hard hitting investigatory journalism, holding the unaccountable to account.
Related posts
UK corruption

Mr Justice Fancourt, Nugee & High Court criminal conspiracy

UK corruption

ICC Judge Jones & High Court criminal conspiracy

UK corruption

Scot Young murder insolvency & the missing £4 billion estate

UK corruption

Chief Registrar Briggs & insolvency court corruption

Sign up for our Newsletter updates

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Worth reading...
Martin Walsh v Paul Staines – Assets of £850,000 sequestrated
error: Alert: All our content is protected - You are prohibited from copying !