Sir Geoffrey Vos – Master of the Rolls jumps ship
January 21, 2026
Trouble comes in 3s. Pictured: Left: ICC Judge Barber. Middle: Mr Justice Adam Johnson. Right: ICC Judge Prentis.
On 11 February 2026 in the High Court of Chancery, Insolvency & Companies Court, our claim was defeated by Mr Justice Adam Johnson, but nothing was determined. We expose ‘judges who do not judge‘ and the ‘government lawyers who affront the law‘ acting with them.
Samuel Hodge, counsel of Enterprise Chambers, on the Attorney General’s B-Panel, was instructed by the Government Legal Department (‘GLD‘) to represent the Insolvency Service, His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service (‘HMCTS‘) and the Lord Chancellor.
The GLD and counsel offered no defence, rather, they used an automatically void order made against this Firm’s witness, to continue concealment of the same crucial evidence and facts he had first given. Mr Justice Adam Johnson did likewise.
The Defendants are accused of fraudulently failing to administer the statutory scheme of law, insolvency set off, causing loss of over £10 million by dishonest deprivation, acting with and for, Middlesbrough Football Club, who didn’t even bother turning up or putting in any defence.
The high profile project originating the dispute: ‘Europe’s first wind powered football stadium’ – That was, until the Club refused the connection!
The historic article by the Northern Echo Newspaper below sets out the background as to how the claim came about.
Middlesbrough FC turbine scheme heads for High Court 20 September 2015 – By Stuart Minting |
AN ambitious scheme to make Middlesbrough FC’s stadium the first self-sustainable sports venue in Europe appears to be in tatters, as the developer behind the project announced it was launching £11m High Court actions against the club and Middlesbrough Council. North Yorkshire developer Empowering Wind said its partnership with Boro had disintegrated following four years’ work, as it prepared to install a 136m turbine in the 34,000-seater stadium’s overflow car park.
The firm claims the Championship club’s bosses have refused to provide a connection from the turbine to Riverside Stadium, following the club suffering £240,000 revenue losses due to lengthy delays as the council considered a Durham Tees Valley Airport objection to the scheme.
No money was owed to Middlesbrough FC before they demanded money and forfeited the lease – after defeating the contractual purpose
The crucial contractual facts, the terms of the deeds in relation to the Cub’s spurious claims were concealed by the judiciary. However, the same terms were said to originate the Club’s purported claims.
What is apparent is that those terms were evaded, because they did not work in the Club’s favour.
We exhibit below a letter from Anthony Stansfeld, then Police & Crime Commissioner for Thames Valley in respect of the third claim made by the Club and their lawyers against EW:
311019_Letter_Beale_Shrimplin_Hannon_A-Stansfeld_31_10_2019
The Insolvency Service failed to respod to the letter,undoubtely knowing that the Attorney General’s Office had put the GLD in to collude with corrupt members of the judiciary to conceal those facts, because no money was contractually owed to the Club.
A matter of public knowledge that Empowering Wind MFC Ltd (‘EW‘) has a claim of over £10 million against the Club
It was widely publicised on the front page of the Northern Echo mainstream newspaper, on 20 September 2015, EW’s claim against the Club arose from when they refused to provide the connection. The contractual purpose of the option to lease was to:
‘Construct, connect to the grid and operate’ a 90m high wind turbine
The Club refused the connection, demanded money that was not contractually owed, then forfeited the lease, purportedly for non-payment!
‘Where there is wrong, there is a remedy‘ yet political interference and cronyism prevails over justice, law and order. Equality before the law, is no more.
Mr Millinder’s public interest statement on the case
Mr Millinder appeared remotely during the ‘hearing’ on 11 February 2026, giving crucial evidence and reading from this Firm’s draft order.
Further into this report we evidence how HMCTS and or the GLD tampered with the official court record to deface the gravity of the oral evidence he gave.
Following the hearing, Mr Millinder wrote back to the Judge, the Lord Chancellor, the GLD and Lady Chief Justice, giving the short speech we cite below:
“What’s good for the goose, must be good for the gander:
If I cannot rely on the terms of a completed deed / a contract, to gain restitution for wrongdoing tortious breach of contract, then neither can anyone else:
If I cannot rely on the mandatory engaged rule on set off because this sect of “Judges” decide that law did not apply to my companies and I, then neither can anyone else:
If I cannot rely on the privilege of absolute immunity from suit in respect of the crucial evidence and facts I had first given in a police investigation and then used in Court, then neither can anyone else,and that includes Adam Johnson, and Clive Hugh Jones, the offender, who relied on Deputy Chief Magistrate Ikram to lie and say that as Jones is immune from suit, he cannot be prosecuted.
If I cannot rely on the Courts and judges of England and Wales to judge impartially –then neither can anyone else”
– Paul Millinder
That’s why we took this case forward, because it affects everyone, it is about preserving the right to a fair and unbiased trial, and English constitutional principles.
Everyone must be equal before the law, and everyone is entitled to the rights and protections granted by the statutory laws of our land.
‘Judges of their own cause‘ and ‘puppets to the puppet masters‘
Right: HHJ Philip Mark Pelling KC’s (early retirement) strings were pulled in June 2018 when he fraudulently failed to administer the mandatory law and then deployed a civil order against the witness (Mr Millinder) who is absolutely immune from any civil actions – to conceal their own fraud.
Our claim, issued on 29 August 2025 sought remedy for wrongdoing, with acts by the former Chief Registrar, Stephen Baister on 19 September 2016, and by ICC Judge Barber on 28 March 2018, that are defined by the Supreme Court at p.2 in Belmont Park Investments Pty Ltd v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Ltd [2011] UKSC 38 (‘Belmont‘) as:
“a direct fraud upon the Bankrupt Laws” from which a party cannot benefit: Higinbotham v Holme (1812) 19 Ves Jun 88, 92.”
Paragraph 1 of the Supreme Court’s judgment in Belmont determined that it is void, contrary to public policy, to have ‘contracted out’ of the primary insolvency legislation:
“1. The anti-deprivation rule and the rule that it is contrary to public policy to contract out of pari passu distribution are two sub-rules of the general principle that parties cannot contract out of the insolvency legislation.“
HMCTS ‘Judges’, the Official Receiver of London, as liquidator of Empowering Wind MFC Ltd (‘EW‘), Middlesbrough Football Club and their lawyers entered into a fraudulent scheme between them to ‘contract out’ or otherwise evade the primary insolvency legislation, 14.25 Insolvency Rules 2016.
The Master of the Rolls, head of civil justice for England & Wales, Sir Geoffrey Vos, whilst Chancellor of the High Court with direct supervision of both Chief Registrar Baister and ICC Judge Barber, made a knowingly false statement at p.103 of his 8 February 2019 judgment in the case, acquired by this Firm:
“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“
Evading the law then covering up that they did – Sir Geoffrey Vos – Master of the Rolls
The forum Sir Geoffrey was referring to, was the rule of due process, insolvency set off, that His Lordship, then Chancellor of the High Court, and his judicial underlings, dishonestly deprived Mr Millinder of, then negated to have judged on, as the rest did throughout. That was however, what the case was all about!
Insolvency set off was to have been administered prior to 19 September 2016, in respect of EW, and prior to 28 March 2018 in respect of EEI.
On 11 April 2018, Chief ICC Judge Briggs joined the conspiracy by finding that the cross claim vested in EEI extinguished the Club’s purported petition debt, and finding that the Club’s purported petition debt was disputed on genuine and substantial grounds. Briggs, an insolvency expert, adjourned the recission case to deny justice.
HHJ Pelling was then factored in, to evade administering insolvency set off, making a civil restraint order without jurisdiction based on more lies, to conceal their fraud. That was all being conducted by the puppet master, then Chancellor of the High Court, now Master of the Rolls, responsible for allocation of all judicial puppets to levels of judiciary.
Less than a year after Sir Geoffrey’s Millinder v Middlesbrough FC judgment in the High Court, in June 2020; Bresco Electrical Services Ltd v Michael J Lonsdale [2020] UKSC 25, the Supreme Court said this at p.27 – 30:
“But 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”).
30. The identification of the net balance is to be ascertained by the taking of an account: see IR 14.25(2). If there is no dispute as to the existence and amount of the claims and cross-claims this is in practice a matter of simple arithmetic, the net balance being the difference between the aggregate of the claims and the aggregate of the cross-claims. But if any of the claims and cross-claims are in dispute, then those disputes will need first to be resolved, by reference to the individual merits of each, before the arithmetic resumes: see again Stein v Blake (supra) per Lord Hoffmann at 255E-G.”
The ‘Judges’ decided applying the law was not for them – resulting in orders void contrary to public policy
EW’s claim against Middlesbrough Football Club (the fourth defendant / ‘D4‘) exceeded £9.2 million net. The claim arose on 30 April 2015 when D4 defeated the contractual purpose of the deeds. Direct contractual pre-liquidation mutuality is established.
On 29 June 2015, 4-days after being blackmailed by D4 in the sum of £256,269.89, it had, pursuant to Section 136(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925, assigned the investment made in the EW development project, to parent company, Earth Energy Investments LLP (‘EEI‘).
On 12 February 2018, D4 sought to claim the sum of £25,000 against EEI.
On 28 March 2018, ICC Judge Barber bypassed / contracted out of the primary insolvency legislation in the same way as the former Chief Registrar Baister did, winding up EEI on 28 March 2018, evading the mandatory engaged rule, 14.25 Insolvency Rules 2016, that required D4’s £25,000 purported claim, to have been set off against the EEI claim.
On 2 October 2025 ICC Judge Barber appears to have been re-installed by Sir Geoffrey – Master of the Rolls
Sir Geoffrey Vos was Chancellor of the High Court when, under his watch, in 2018, ICC Judge Barber was permitted to trespass on a case in which a Master / ICC Judge was precluded from making any order.
The puppet master (of the Rolls) gave his orders, strings were pulled and all the puppets fell into line.
What happened was that on 10 September 2025, ICC Judge Prentis was sent in to make an order staying the claim. ICC Judge Prentis lied, saying that this Firm had not provided an address for service in the UK. We produced an article exposing ICC Judge Prentis’s blatant lies shortly thereafter.
On 11 October 2025, we applied to set aside the Prentis order staying the claim based on his easily proven lie.
The Master of the Rolls, who is responsible for ‘allocation of cases to levels of judiciary’, who also has a statutory duty to maintain ‘judicial independence’ allocated ICC Judge Barber back into the case, of which he knew she was conflicted. This was done to conceal their own fraud.
On 2 October 2025, ICC Judge Barber presided over this case, which involves ‘criminal matters’ that precluded her jurisdiction under Practice Direction 2B, Rule 3.1(b), but we knew it was rigged, so we applied to ICC Judge Barber to set aside her own fraudulent void order of 28 March 2018, on the terms of and for the reasons given, which we exhibit below:
A___CLAIMANT-DRAFT-ORDER-02-10-2025
ICC Judge Barber declined the Claimant’s right, ex debito justitiae, to have set aside her own order of 28 March 2018 because we proved it was founded by fraud, rather on 2 October 2025, ICC Judge Barber made this order, having been knowingly conflicted, acting as ‘judge of her own cause’:
We produced an article in November 2025, called ‘ICC Judge Barber a Danger to the Public‘ – it was included in ‘Bundle-B’ which the GLD, Mr Hodge and Mr Justice Adam Johnson concealed and failed to rule on. It is all fraud.
Mr Justice Adam Johnson evaded this Firm’s skeleton argument and 3 bundles of evidence
Essentially, our claim and the skeleton for the hearing was about these 3 crucial issues:
(A) THE CONTRACTUAL FACTS ESTABLISHING THE EW & EEI CROSS CLAIMS WERE CONCEALED AND NEVER TOUCHED ON:
(B) INSOLVENCY SET OFF WAS FRAUDULENTLY BYPASSED AND THEN THE FRAUD WAS CONCEALED THROUGHOUT:
(C) ILLEGAL TRESPASS ON MR MILLINDER’S PRIVILEGE OF ABSOLUTE WITNESS IMMUNITY IN RESPECT OF THE CRUCIAL EVIDENCE & CONTRACTUAL FACTS HE HAD FIRST GIVEN AS A WITNESS TO POLICE FROM 9 JANUARY 2017 AND THEN AS WITNESS IN COURT FOR EEI FROM 21 DECEMBER 2017 AND CONCEALMENT OF WITNESS EVIDENCE IN TANDEM BY FRAUDULENT FAILURE TO JUDGE
It became immediately clear that Mr Justice Adam Johnson had not even read our skeleton argument or looked at out 3 bundles for the 11 February 2026 purported hearing. We exhibit our skeleton below:
HMCTS tampered with the transcript and or audio to deface the gravity of the oral testimony against the Defendants
We obtained the official transcript of the purported hearing on 11 February 2026. We immediately identified that there was severe redaction / alteration only in the material places where this Firm and its witness were speaking.
On 1 November 2022 Andrews LJ said this:
“If (the Claimant) was a genuine assignee then a ruling against Millinder as an individual would not have any bearing on its right to litigate“
With that in mind, Mr Justice Adam Johnson deliberately evaded the final determination by Lady Justice Andrews , a Court of Appeal Judge, and the fact that no court or judge had jurisdiction to have made any restraint order against Mr Millinder, by relying on the purported restraint order as his excuse to conceal the obvious and proven fraud and dishonesty by fellow judges who were all obviously, acting under orders of the puppet master, the Master of the Rolls himself.
Below we adduce our 3-page submission we circulated to the parties after discovering that either the hearing audio and or the official transcript had been severely tampered with…
Bundle B of this Firm’s 3 bundles exposed serious judicial corruption
Mr Justice Adam Johnson was directed in this Firm’s skeleton argument to the 4 crucial real evidence based reports proving the case and instances of judicial fraud and corruption.
Bundle B, which we exhibit below is rather revealing (which is why he covered it up)…
The severely redacted 11 February 2026 official court record
We publish the corrupted official court record, the 11 February 2026 hearing transcript corresponding to our 3-page submission showing how the corrupt government and its court system (H.M.C.T.S) tamper with the hearing audio and or official transcripts to obfuscate from the truth and to conceal crucial evidence and facts:
1___Transcript_Acolad_11-02-2026
The fraudulent order by Mr Justice Adam Johnson
Judges who deliberately do not judge to make gains and to cause loss are not judges, they are fraudsters.
We show you how Mr Justice Adam Johnson acted as the corrupt Government’s ‘puppet’ allowing his strings to be pulled to conceal the crucial evidence and facts both to have made a gain and to have caused loss, and to have prevented justice being served on the Defendants, including other corrupt judges, and most of all, ICC Judges Prentis and Barber, who also acted as puppets in the same way.
A severe affront to justice and the Court of Appeal’s final public policy judgments by Mr Justice Adam Johnson
The Court of Appeal finally ruled on the issue of ‘TWM’ (“Totally Without Merit”) in two leading judgments, we define as Grace and Wasif.
At p.15 in Grace, the Court of Appeal finally determined as a matter of public policy that:
“First, no judge will certify an application as TWM unless he is confident after careful consideration that the case truly is bound to fail. He or she will no doubt have in mind the seriousness of the issue and the consequences of his decision in the particular case.”
The Court in Grace drew the distinction between an application within the case, and the case itself.
At p.19 in Wasif, the Court of Appeal finally determined as a matter of public policy that:
“But where the application is certified as TWM, so that the claimant has reached the end of the road (subject to appeal), peculiar care must be taken to ensure that all the arguments raised in the grounds are properly addressed.“
It is evident that Mr Justice Adam Johnson lied and certified our case and application as ‘TWM’, but whilst taking ‘peculiar care’ to ensure none of the grounds and argument was even touched on, let alone the final determination by Lady Justice Andrews whereby, after examination of the issue, Her Ladyship determined that this Firm is not affected by the purported civil restraint order made to conceal the evidence its witness, Mr Millinder had first given.
It was about points A, B and C of our skeleton argument. Where was any of hat touched on in his order?
Courts and judges do not have jurisdiction to conceal fraud and crossover offences with civil restraint orders.
INVITATION TO COMMENT
What is the purpose of a judge who does not judge, and what would the ordinary man down the pub think?
The Chancellor of the High Court, Lord Justice Birss, who is responsible for conduct of judges in the High Court of Chancery, Mr Justice Adam Johnson, the Government Legal Department and Susanna McGibbon, the office holder, Lord Hermer KC, the Attorney General, the Prime Minister’s Anti-Corruption Champion, Secretary of State for Justice and the Serious Fraud Office has been invited to comment on this report.
All comments will be published in the public interest.
