Justice denied with misuse of civil restraint orders

Table of Contents

Justice denied with misuse of civil restraint orders

It has been widely reported to us by many that the judges of England and Wales are prematurely and unjustly labeling cases as ‘totally without merit’ (‘TWM’) to suppress genuine legal arguments.

A civil restraint order, governed by the statutory rule at Practice Direction 3C severely limits an individual’s fundamental right of access to justice, it must only be used proportionally.

The widespread abuse reported to this firm over the years of one’s right of access to justice being stymied, led us to taking direct action in 3 unrelated cases we took forward. The common synergy we found was ‘Judges’ were acting so perversely and contrary to the standards and common law Court of Appeal final judgments on the issue of ‘TWM’, by taking “peculiar care” to ensure the preliminary argument in each of the cases, were never touched on, let alone properly considered.

The corrupt practice pravails throughout His Majesty’s Courts of Tribunals Service (H.M.C.T.S) and the largely unregulated legal services sector, who exploit the abuse by ‘Judges’ under HMCTS, assisting unscrupulous lawyers by suppressing good claims and preventing justice from being served on their opposition.

The conduct is, quite categorically gross human rights abuse by the State, the Lord Chancellor and HMCTS. We are here to curb that.

‘Justice denied’ – The book was closed before it was opened, so that the Court didn’t rule on the contents of the pages. That’s the analogy.

Our case in Court on 17 June 2026 – in the public interest

On 17 June 2026, the case of Perseus Ventures Limited v Foskett and others is being heard in the High Court King’s Bench Division all day on the important public interest point of law on the use of ‘TWM’ to stymie good claims.

We produced a full report on the case following various ‘Judges’ of the King’s Bench Division affronting the Court of Appeal’s two leading final public policy decisions on the issue of ‘TWM’, by concealing the crucial evidence and points at issue, and then certifying as ‘TWM’ leading to misuse of civil restraint orders, and acts without jurisdiction.

‘Mr Justice Soole never judged at all‘

Get to the issues fast with our generative A.I Q & A

Question 1: What is the main focus of the report regarding Mr Justice Soole and the King’s Bench Division?

The report alleges that Mr Justice Soole and other judges in the King’s Bench Division engaged in judicial misconduct, evaded key arguments, and orchestrated actions to conceal evidence and facts adverse to the defendants, thereby denying justice to Perseus Ventures Limited (PVL) in its dispute with Barclays Bank PLC and its LPA Receivers.

Question 2: What are civil restraint orders and how were they allegedly misused in this case?

Civil restraint orders are legal mechanisms intended to manage vexatious litigants by restricting meritless applications. However, the report claims they were misused by judges to unjustly restrict PVL’s access to justice. This involved wrongfully certifying applications as “Totally Without Merit” (TWM) to prevent fair hearings and conceal judicial errors or misconduct.

Question 3: What was the nature of the alleged fraud involving PVL’s property at 94 Rope Street?

The report states that PVL’s property was “hijacked” by Susan Carol Veale, who forged a lease and embezzled around £675,000 in income from subleasing the property while being an undischarged bankrupt, with the LPA Receivers and Barclays Bank PLC failing to take action to recover the property or income.

Question 4: How did the LPA Receivers allegedly breach their duties according to the report?

The LPA Receivers are accused of breaching their contractual and fiduciary duties by failing to collect rent and income from the property, not taking possession from unauthorized occupiers, and concealing the proceeds of sale, resulting in significant financial loss to PVL.

Question 5: What role did Addleshaw Goddard LLP and Barclays Bank PLC allegedly play in the dispute?

Addleshaw Goddard LLP, acting for Barclays Bank PLC and the LPA Receivers, is alleged to have relied on judicial failures to evade justice, participated in false accounting, and unlawfully retained proceeds from the sale of PVL’s property, contributing to an alleged embezzlement conspiracy.

Question 6: What procedural irregularities are highlighted regarding the handling of PVL’s applications for disclosure?

The report claims that judges wrongly denied PVL’s applications for pre-action disclosure of leases and financial records, misapplied legal rules, and failed to address the merits of PVL’s claims, thereby obstructing the identification of the quantum of loss and summary disposal of the case.

Question 7: How did the report characterize the actions of Master Brown and HHJ Richard Pearce?

Master Brown is described as knowingly conflicted and acting as an “agent” for the defendants, removing evidence from the court file and making adverse orders against PVL, while HHJ Pearce is accused of unfair prejudice and bias by preventing PVL’s remote attendance and adjourning applications to Master Brown, who lacked jurisdiction.

Question 8: What is the significance of the “Totally Without Merit” (TWM) certification in this context?

The TWM certification is significant because judges allegedly used it improperly to dismiss PVL’s applications without proper consideration, contrary to Court of Appeal guidance that requires careful assessment and full reasoning before certifying a case as TWM, as such certification ends the plaintiff’s path to an oral hearing.

Question 9: What outcome did PVL face as a result of the judicial actions described in the report?

PVL’s claims were struck out, applications were dismissed or left undetermined, and an extended civil restraint order was imposed. All this occurred while the proceeds from the sale of its property were allegedly unlawfully retained by the defendants, leaving PVL without remedy and its right to justice denied.

Question 10: What broader issues does the report raise about the rule of law and judicial accountability?

The report raises concerns about systemic judicial misconduct, lack of accountability, abuse of legal procedures to protect powerful interests, and the erosion of fair trial rights, calling for public scrutiny and reform to restore the rule of law and hold unaccountable actors to account.

Persistent lies by top judge Sir Geoffrey Vos – an outrage

Justice denied with misuse of civil restraint orders

Our case in Court on 17 June 2026 – in the public interest

‘Mr Justice Soole never judged at all‘

Get to the issues fast with our generative A.I Q & A

admin

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

INTELLIGENCE UK

Persistent lies by top judge Sir Geoffrey Vos – an outrage

Persistent lies by top judge Sir Geoffrey Vos – an outrage

Justice denied with misuse of civil restraint orders

Our case in Court on 17 June 2026 – in the public interest

‘Mr Justice Soole never judged at all‘

Get to the issues fast with our generative A.I Q & A

Related

admin

Related posts

Persistent lies by top judge Sir Geoffrey Vos – an outrage

Protected: Hoodwinked by lawyers of £353,000 out of Barclays Bank

Mr Justice Soole never judged at all

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

INTELLIGENCE UK