Citation from page 69 – 71 of the transcript of the hearing before Nugee J of 5th February 2018
A copy of the transcript & judgment of the hearing is here.
Mr Staunton: And then, page 171, there is a statutory demand —
Nugee J: And it comes from EEI?
Mr Staunton: Yeah. Now, of important to note page 174, there’s an assertion there’d been an assignment —
Nugee J: Yes, on the 26th June.
Mr Staunton: On the 26th of June ’15, indeed.
Nugee J: Yes.
Mr Staunton: Now —
Nugee J confirms he has read and was taken to the assignment minute
- Nugee J: Well, that was the document which Mr Millinder showed me, which is the board minutes.
2. Mr Staunton: Yeah, right.
3. Nugee J: And that was one of the documents referred to in, in Penningtons letter of the 11th?
4. Mr Staunton: Indeed, and its tab, Mr Millinder’s bundle, tab 27 I have it at.
5. Nugee J: Yes, yes.
6. Mr Staunton: Second page in. Reading that second paragraph, what’s assigned to EEI are the investments, the £200,000.
7. Nugee J: Yeah.
Firstly Staunton fraudulently misrepresents the second paragraph of the terms of the assignment:
- Mr Staunton: But not the cause of action, because in this second paragraph, third line:
a. “We agree to separate out what went in as an investment to the project, so there were two causes of action with the payment recovering funds invested and Empowering recovering consequential loss.”
(Note 1: The correct terms are: two causes of action, with the Parent recovering funds invested and Empowering recovering consequential loss)
2. So, it’s still its claim.
3. Nugee J: Well, I’m not sure I’ve quite understood how that fits with the claim that was in the statutory demand. Because the statutory demand is for £200,000 on the lease premium and £330,000 in legal and technical project development processes, and that could be the parent’s investment, could it not?
(Note 2: Nugee admitted that he knew the investment in Empowering had been assigned to Parent company)
4. Mr Staunton: It might be, yes. But all of this point about assignment was dealt with in Mr Bloom’s witness statement for Mr Justice Arnold.
(Note 3: Which is another lie on the part of Staunton who knew that Bloom’s witness statement was false, Bloom lied about the assignment, but the corrupt Court, including Nugee have been concealing the multiple frauds and dishonesty, preventing justice being served on the offenders / perverting the course of justice and concealing the criminal property Mr Millinder was defrauded of).
5. Nugee J: Yeah.
6. Mr Staunton: And so therefore, it’s also in my skeleton before Mr Justice Arnold in paragraph 12.
7. Nugee J: Yeah.
8. Mr Staunton: So, what Mr Justice Arnold had before him was a threat by EEI to serve a statutory demand with questions about whether the debt is disputed, whether it’s a dispute between the parties which had been canvassed in correspondence, and secondly, whether in fact EEI had any claim.
9. Nugee J: Yeah.
Staunton lied and misrepresented the fact that the assignment had been served on the offenders on 30/06/2015, then on 03/01/2017 and then on 6/01/2017
1. Mr Staunton: And the evidence before him, in my submission, was that until service of the statutory demand Mr Millinder had been advancing claims on behalf of Empowering Wind, not EEI.
2. Nugee J: Yes.
3. Mr Staunton: It was its claim. And for that reason, Mr Justice Arnold grants the injunction.
4. Defendant’s bundle, tab two, page 9’s the attendance note.
5. Nugee J: Yeah.
6. Mr Staunton: If you turn onto page 10, Mr Justice Arnold’s decision at the foot of the page.
7. If you turn over, page 11, fifth paragraph commencing on that page 8. “Until recently.”
8Nugee J: Yeah.
9. Mr Staunton: And the following paragraph as well.
“The Respondent states.”
10. So, Mr Justice Arnold grants the injunction on two grounds —
11. Nugee J: Two grounds.
12. Mr Staunton: Essentially, yeah.
13. Nugee J: Because there’s —
14. Mr Staunton: Dispute and doubts —
15. Nugee J: There’s doubt, doubt over the assignment and dispute over the claim.
16. Mr Staunton: Absolutely.
17. Nugee J: Yes.
The law makes the assignment valid from the date notice was given (29th June 2015) and the claim for unlawful forfeiture is proven and cannot be disputed.