In the case of Millinder v Middlesbrough Football & Athletic Company (1986) Ltd and Middlesbrough Football & Athletic Company (1986) Ltd v. Earth Energy Investments LLP & Others [2019] EWHC 226 (Ch) Sir Geoffrey Vos, Master of the Rolls breached his oath, perverted the course of justice and acted with ill-will and genuine bias. Ulick Staunton.
Sir Geoffrey Vos concealed fraud and deliberately failed to do anything the application before him sought to deal with
Sir Geoffrey Vos affronted the rule of law, defeating the long established doctrine in the insolvency court’s duty of inquiry that there is no res judicata in the insolvency court, failing to exercise the duty of inquiry to sustain fraudulent liabilities in detriment to the interests of creditors. Millinder v Middlesbrough FC
Sir Geoffrey Vos failed in his duty to set aside a void, without jurisdiction Extended Civil Restraint Order (“ECRO”) to assist Middlesbrough Football Club in using the court to defraud creditors whilst evading justice. Millinder v Middlesbrough FC
The judgment arose as a result of Mr Millinder’s application for a fraud trial dated 28th September 2018. The application was made under the guise of the void ECRO and Sir Geoffrey Vos himself provided permission for the application to be brought.
At paragraph 7 of his order, acting without jurisdiction, Sir Geoffrey Vos sought to limit the remit of the application, deliberately failing whatsoever to have done what the application sought to achieve:
“The Application also asks the court to set aside orders made by ICC Judge Jones on 26th March 2018, a winding up order made against Earth Energy Investments LLP (“Earth Energy”) on 28th March 2018, and to determine that none of Mr Millinder or his companies ever owed any monies to Middlesbrough. As will later appear, the basis on which I directed the hearing that has given rise to this judgment was as an application to discharge the ECRO, made under paragraph 3.2(2) of Practice Direction 3C. No permission has been given under the ECRO for any other applications to be made, though I will need in the course of this judgment to consider aspects of the orders that Mr Millinder seeks to challenge”
The Applicant was Mr Millinder as per that 28th September 2018 application and yet Sir Geoffrey Vos, who was acting for Middlesbrough Football & Athletic Company (1986) Ltd (“MFC”) falsely described that MFC was the applicant after suppressing Mr Millinder’s application that originated the proceeding entirely.
The application originating the order asked the insolvency court to exercise its duty of inquiry to set aside judgments where it was proven and admitted by MFC’s counsel himself that there was no debt owed to MFC in truth and reality.
Sir Geoffrey Vos concealed proven criminal fraud / perverted the course of justice
Sir Geoffrey Vos had before him various salient pieces of evidence in chronological order proving beyond doubt that MFC and Staunton knew the representations they were making were false:
CODE: Green = truth Orange = result of misrepresentation Red = conscious and premeditated dishonesty
(1) The 12/11/2018 skeleton argument by Ulick Staunton, counsel for MFC
At paragraph 37 he “u-turned” on the claims he admitted could not be established on 09/01/2017 because, in his own words “Force Majeure has effect”. We quote:
“Para 110 of the ske. The assertion that Rs did something wrong in respect of the wind turbine project is one that may provide a foundation for a claim by Empowering, not A. The para ends with an assertion that “the Defendant” cannot bring any claim against “the Applicant”; this is not understood. Rs do not bring any claim against A, or Empowering or Earth Energy“
Sir Geoffrey Vos had before him the categoric written admission by Ulick Staunton, counsel for MFC that they “U-turned” on the claims; £256,269.89, £541,308.89 and then over £4.1 million. It was the c£4.1 million claim that Mr Millinder asked Vos to try, he concealed it altogether and asked Ulick Staunton to retract and replace his skeleton less the admission above.
It was likewise proven before Sir Geoffrey Vos that the order of 28/03/2018 winding up Earth Energy Investments LLP (“EEI”) was founded by conscious and pre-meditated dishonesty.
At paragraph 7 of the judgment Sir Geoffrey Vos admitted that he knew that Mr Millinder’s application sought to set aside both the order of 28/03/2018 and the order of 26/03/2018, both of which were originated by proven fraud.
(2) The transcript of 05/02/2018 hearing before Nugee J
Itt is evidenced that Ulick Staunton’s actual state of mind that the investment was assigned from EW to EEI and Nugee J confirmed the same:
Mr Staunton: Second page in. Reading that second paragraph, what’s assigned to EEI are the investments, the £200,000.
Nugee J: Yeah.
Ulick Staunton knew that anyway, having attended an ex-parte injunction proceeding on 09/01/2017 to refrain EEI from presenting a statutory demand against MFC when the demand was founded by the assigned investments.
(3) The transcript of the EEI winding up hearing of the MFC £25,000 petition before ICCJ Barber on 28/03/2018
Knowing that the assigned investment in the sum of £770,000 plus standard interest accruing from 30/06/2015 when the assignment was served on MFC extinguished their £25,000 purported petition debt by over 34 times, on 28/03/2018 in Mr Millinder’s absence, Ulick Staunton attended the winding up hearing of the MFC petition and committed fraud by false representation:
MR STAUNTON: Earth Energy has a fully owned subsidiary, Empowering Wind, which is now in the process of being wound up. The liquidator is Mr Hannon from the OR’s office. The subsidiary had an agreement with the petitioner. The petitioner has, as part of that group, terminated the agreement and also a lease underlying it and Mr Millinder then said, “Well, the subsidiary has a significant claim for damages against Middlesbrough”, but it never brought any proceedings.
JUDGE BARBER: It’s not a cross-claim then.
MR STAUNTON: That is the cross-claim.
JUDGE BARBER: Well, it’s not a cross-claim though, is it?
MR STAUNTON: Well, I – in my submission, no
(4) The transcript of the rescission application hearing on 11/04/2018
After first lying to ICCJ Barber on 28/03/2018 and denying all knowledge of the cross claim assigned investments which extinguished the MFC fraudulently obtained petition debt by over 34 times as of 05/02/2018 Ulick Staunton admitted this:
MR STAUNTON: –and paras.17 to 24. So there’s a cross claim which extinguishes the liability to pay £25,000
THE CHIEF REGISTRAR: Yeah.
MR STAUNTON: But we see that also was before Judge Barber and she made the Winding Up Order.
MR STAUNTON: There is the cross claim. There is the assignment. So the two grounds upon which Earth Energy invite you to rescind the Winding Up Order were before Judge Barber—-
THE CHIEF REGISTRAR: Yes.
MR STAUNTON: —and she considered them. I attended that hearing.
THE CHIEF REGISTRAR: Yes.
MR STAUNTON: I explained the situation to her.
It is proven at (3) above that what was before ICCJ Barber on 28/03/2018 is Ulick Staunton’s conscious and pre-meditated dishonesty in the form of fraud by false representation. It is proven at (2) above that is actual state of mind as to the knowledge of the facts and circumstances on 05/02/2018 was that the investments were assigned from EW to EEI, which he knew since 09/01/2017. Likewise it is proven at (4) directly above that on 11/04/2018 before Chief Registrar Briggs Ulick Staunton committed fraud by false representation on the second count and lied, knowing that he lied about the cross claim and made no mention whatsoever of the assignment.
“I can see no evidence of fraud”
At paragraph 53 of his judgment Sir Geoffrey Vos stated this:
“53. On 11th April 2018, Chief ICCJ Briggs adjourned the 29th March 2018 application to rescind the winding up order against Earth Energy to be heard together with the first application (which was dated 1st March 2018, and was an application to set aside inter alia the consent order of 16th January 2017 on the grounds of significant non-disclosure). Mr Millinder makes a number of allegations about this hearing and Mr Staunton’s conduct in relation to it. I need not set out those allegations in detail, though they are made at length in paragraphs 75-82 of his first skeleton. They proceed on the basis of an assumption that there was a conspiracy against Mr Millinder by judges, lawyers and the Official Receiver”
Sir Geoffrey Vos admitted that he knew where the pleadings of fraud by false representation were, and he had the intent to conceal the proven fraud pleaded above, which was set out in Mr Millinder’s skeleton in precisely the same way as it is at (2), (3) and (4) above. It was that fraud which the application by Mr Millinder sought to try and it is proven that Vos concealed it stating “I need not set out those allegations in detail”, he did not set out any of it at all.
At paragraph 54 of his judgment Vos stated this:
Mr Hannon, by now the liquidator of both Earth Energy and Empowering Wind MFC, did not wish to pursue Earth Energy’s alleged claim against Middlesbrough and contended that no such claim was assigned by Empowering Wind MFC to Earth Energy under the alleged assignment or at all.
Interestingly, Vos relied on Hannon stating he did not wish to pursue EEI’s claim against MFC and contended no such claim was assigned, yet Hannon is just the delinquent white-collar criminal describing himself as the “Official Receiver of London” who was conspiring with MFC and their corrupt lawyers to defraud Mr Millinder of both the claim vesting in EW and the claim vesting in EEI.
Hannon is not legally trained. Ulick Staunton however is, and on 11/04/2018 it is attested on the hearing transcript that Staunton himself knew that the investment was assigned, as he did on 05/02/2018 when he said “what’s assigned are the investments”.
Criminal Offences under the Insolvency Act 1986 by the liquidator and obvious malfeasance was concealed by Sir Geoffrey Vos
In that same paragraph of his judgment, Vos admitted that Hannon was acting as liquidator of EEI.
Schedule 10 of the Insolvency Act 1986 creates a number of criminal offences committed by delinquent liquidators who fail to do certain things in the course of their statutory duties. One of these is the summary offence of:
| 109(2) | Liquidator failing to publish notice of his appointment. |
We referred to the Earth Energy Investments London Gazette public notice timeline in respect of Hannon’s alleged appointment as liquidator of EEI and it is evidenced that Mr Dionne is the appointed liquidator, not Mr Hannon, proving that Hannon was never appointed and that he appointed himself only to defraud Mr Millinder, requisite majority creditor of the £770,000 assigned investments (plus standard 8% interest accruing from 30/06/2015 when the notice of assignment was served.
The course of public justice had started and it is proven that Sir Geoffrey Vos has perverted the course of justice to prevent justice being served on Hannon, MFC and Staunton. We are however just scratching the surface in relation to the extent of this massive cover up by the corrupt, politically controlled judiciary.
Judicial bias we ask? How about outright aggravated criminal conspiracy to defraud and perversion of the course of justice by the corrupt politically controlled judiciary?
At paragraph 103 of his judgment Sir Geoffrey Vos has the audacity to state this:
“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“.
Statute conferred in section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006 creates the indictable criminal offence of fraud by false representation which is complete when one makes a representation, either written or orally, knowing that the representation, is, or might be untrue or misleading, with intent to make a gain and to cause a loss to another, or others. That is precisely what Staunton did on 28th March 2018 on the first count and then on 11th April 2018 on the second count.
Knowing, by his own previous admission in court during the hearing of 05/02/2018 that the investment made in EW was assigned to EEI, Staunton committed fraud by false representation so that the cause of action fell back to Hannon with whom he was conspiring. As attested by Vos himself, Hannon then sought to undermine the validity of the assignment, indeed, Vos did precisely the same.
Sir Geoffrey Vos lied to conceal the blackmail of 25/06/2015 used to unlawfully forfeit the lease
The application notice itself originating the 08/02/2019 order by Vos cited the 05/02/2018 judgment by Nugee J where he found that MFC unlawfully forfeited the lease based on their 25/06/2015 unwarranted demand in the sum of £256,269.89. It took no degree to work it out, £75,000 was for rent when had MFC not refused the connection on 30/05/2015, the first installment of rent in the sum of £15,000 was not payable until 17/06/2015.
The remainder; £181,269.89 was an invoice pursuant to the conditional energy supply agreement whereby in absence of Mr Millinder’s “satisfaction in full” of the two conditions precedent: (1) “entering into a connection agreement” (the connection that MFC refused) and (2) “commissioning” of the wind turbine (which requires the connection):
(a) There was no “Entitlement to agreed output” (agreement by EW and Mr Millinder to supply power)
(b) Any “Invoicing & payment” was contractually prohibited.
The “Start Date” of the energy supply agreement is “the date from which those two conditions were satisfied“. Sir Geoffrey Vos knew, as did MFC, that they never were, because MFC refused the connection and, stating the obvious, without a connection, the turbine cannot operate.
“A quantified claim for rent” – Knowing that no rent was owed and that 3/4 of the demand was for energy supply
Knowing of this indisputable position which “goes to the heart” of the case proving unlawful forfeiture and the fact that the claims are false, at paragraph 105 of his judgment, working to assist MFC in concealing their further fraud, Sir Geoffrey Vos stated this:
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.
The outright lies by Sir Geoffrey Vos can be nothing other than of malicious and premeditated dishonest intent. Of course, he knew that the £256,269.89 claim could not be quantified at all and the time for advancing cross claims originating by mutual dealings is the mandatory legal duty of the court to have done so prior to making the EW winding up order.
Indeed, it is also a lie that Sir Geoffrey Vos claimed Mr Millinder did not advance the cross claims. He did, and it is evidenced that the Court had the cross claim founded by proven unlawful forfeiture of the lease in its possession in hard copy on 11th September 2016, 8-days clear of the winding up hearing where the Court was under a mandatory legal duty to have applied set off.
Knowing that the claim for unlawful forfeiture of the lease is proven and is found to have been proven, undoubtedly Sir Geoffrey Vos knew that the multi-million pound claim was to be paid as a dividend to Mr Millinder pursuant to rule 14.25(5) of the Insolvency Rules 2016 from 05/02/2018 when the claim was tried and proven.
There is proven fraud, there is the categoric admission that both the £4,111,874.75 proof of debt claim against EW and the £25,000 claim against EEI do not exist in truth and reality.
Misconduct in office and gross errors in law rendering the decision by Sir Geoffrey Vos a nullity
In the application by Mr Millinder to try that fraud, Sir Geoffrey Vos was asked to exercise duty of inquiry and set aside those orders that were proven to have been originated by fraud.
(a) Affronting the doctrine of “no res judicata” in insolvency proceedings
“99. That brings me to the second of Mr Millinder’s apparent misunderstandings. Mr Millinder’s conduct leads me to believe that he has thought all along that it is or was open to him or his companies, as an alternative to appealing orders of the court, to apply (sometimes repeatedly) to different judges in the same court that made those orders, to set them aside. I asked him about this in oral argument, and he said that he had never appealed the orders because the court had not addressed “the preliminary considerations, so there was really nothing much to appeal”.
“100. As I have already made clear, the 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 limited. Our courts rightly set great store by the finality of the orders that are made after argument. The option for taking two bites at the cherry are limited indeed“
It is evidenced at paragraph 99 and 100 above that Sir Geoffrey Vos was either acting corruptly to conceal the proven fraud and the fact he knew that both the £25,000 fraudulent liability against EEI and the c£4.1 million fraudulent liability against EW could be set aside as there is no res judicata in the insolvency court, or, he made clear and obvious gross error of law rendering the decision, which was already void, a nullity on the additional ground of the collateral fact doctrine.
(b) Affronting law that commits the assignment of the investment from EW to EEI as being effectual from 30/05/2015
“107. I should say at once that Mr Millinder cannot ask me now to decide whether Nugee J and HHJ Pelling were mistaken about the validity of the alleged assignment. That could only have been done on appeal from those decisions, which are now out of time”
“108. I can understand Mr Millinder’s argument that the alleged assignment (a) referred to the alleged £200,000 claim, and (b) was sufficiently clear to amount to valid assignment under section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925“.
The 29/06/2015 assignment notice
It was all the investment that was assigned to EEI, not just the £200,000. Most critically, it is the notice of assignment which commits the assignment as being effective and not the actual assignment document itself. Although, it was both the absolute assignment with notice given in the cover letter below, and the assignment that was served on MFC on 30/06/2015 and thereafter interest has continue to accrue:
The two winding up orders against EW and EEI were founded by fraud upon the court and its own maladministration by deliberately failing in its mandatory legal duty to apply insolvency set off which the Supreme Court emphasised to be mandatory in all insolvency proceedings in the Bresco 2020 judgment.
In respect of both issues, it is proven that both sets of insolvency proceedings are a nullity and Sir Geoffrey Vos based his judgment on those nullities, rendering it void ab initio, notwithstanding the fact that he affronted the rule of law he is paid by the taxpayer to administer, he perverted the course of justice and he was working for Middlesbrough FC, violating the rules of natural justice.
The £25,000 purported petition debt was extinguished by over 34 times on 12/02/2018 when MFC’s lawyers presented the petition, rendering it a nullity, there was no debt.
The order of 28/03/2018 was founded by Staunton’s conscious and pre-meditated dishonesty, yet it was void from the outset, founded by the nullity petition debt, but yet in addition, the order was founded by Staunton’s proven fraud, nullifying it anyway.
The c£4.1 million fraud by false representation that Vos sought to use in the same way as MFC, Hannon and their lawyers did was a manifestation of the fraudulent £256,269.89 claim which Vos lied about, knowing it had already been found that the claims are entirely false, but that Staunton had admitted it himself.
Conclusively, it is proven that Sir Geoffrey Vos, the head of civil justice for England and Wales is a fraudster, a liar and a cheat. He is an imposter who continues to leech off taxpayer’s funds after perverting the course of justice and breaching his oath. The corrupt Tory establishment and the police they control, provide him impunity so that he can continue defrauding people of their rights in law and of these assets in much the same way as he is proven to have done in Mr Millinder’s case.
Read the full Millinder v Middlesbrough Football & Athletic Company (1986) Ltd void mala fide judgment by the delinquent Sir Geoffrey Vos here
We have asked Sir Geoffrey Vos, the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor to comment on this article.
Help us to help you. Like, comment and share far and wide. There’s a cure for corruption and that is, transparency.
