“(1) This rule applies in a winding up where, before the company goes into liquidation, there have been mutual dealings between the company and a creditor of the company proving or claiming to prove for a debt in the liquidation.

(2) An account must be taken of what is due from the company and the creditor to each other in respect of their mutual dealings and the sums due from the one must be set off against the sums due from the other.

(3) If there is a balance owed to the creditor then only that balance is provable in the winding up.

(4) If there is a balance owed to the company then that must be paid to the liquidator as part of the assets“

What the House of Lords and Supreme Court say about set off:

Stein v Blake [1995] UKHL 11 is a final judgment by the House of Lords in relation to the effect of automatic set-off in bankruptcy / insolvency proceeding.

Here’s paragraph 5 of the judgment:

“Bankruptcy set-off therefore requires an account to be taken of liabilities which, at the time of bankruptcy, may be due but not yet payable or may be unascertained in amount or subject to contingency. Nevertheless the law says that the account shall be deemed to have been taken and the sums due from one party set off against the other as at the date of the bankruptcy“

In Bresco Electrical v Lonsdale [2020) the Supreme Court ruled this at paragraphs 29 – 30:

Paragraph 29:

“….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).”

Paragraph 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.

On 19 September 2016 the corrupt judiciary of England and Wales (Chief Registrar Baister) defrauded Mr Millinder by deliberately depriving him of the mandatory rule of insolvency set off when the rule was engaged.

An order was made winding up EW that was and is in law, automatically void for failure to comply with the mandatory statutory requirement.

On 28 March 2018, ICCJ Barber defrauded Mr Millinder, knowing that on 21 March 2018 Mr Justice Nugee made an order listing EEI’s application to set aside the Club’s purported £25,000 petition debt, ICCJ Barber wound up EEI to defeat the High Court Judge’s order and at the same time, bypassing the mandatory law of due process to have defrauded Mr Millinder of over £650,000 when EEI was never insolvent and the Club had no petition debt that was not easily proven to have been an abuse of process.

To cut a long story short, the offenders involved wilfully breached their oaths and acted with intent to make a gain and to have caused loss in Mr Millinder’s case by fraudulently ‘contracting out’ / bypassing the mandatory law of due process in respect of both EW and EEI to ensure that justice was not served on the Tory affiliated Club, owned by Steve Gibson OBE.

On 9 January 2017 Mr Justice Arnold lied to cover up the fact no money was owed to the Club

After EEI had served the Club a statutory demand for the assigned investment on 6 January 2017, the Club applied to the High Court for a financial injunction ex-parte (without notice) to EEI.

The Club withheld the assignment on which the EEI claim was based, and lied in their witness statement, saying essentially they have no idea how the claim came about and that they had seen ‘no evidence of the assignment’ that was served on them at the front desk of Riverside Stadium by process server with the demand, just two-days prior.

Knowing that the rent was £50,000 a year payable to the Club by EW in quarterly installments, and having been taken by Mr Staunton to the collection of invoices in the sum of £256,269.89 of which 5 were for rent in the sum of 15,000 including V.A.T, at paragraph 3 of his fraudulent 9 January 2017 judgment of Mr Justice Arnold said this:

“3 The background to the matter, in summary, is as follows. On 17 June 2013 the applicant granted Empowering Wind a lease on payment of a premium of £200,000 under which Empowering Wind was liable to pay rent of £550,000 per annum. There was a planning aspect to the matter which I do not propose to go into in any detail, but the upshot was that it was not until December 2014 that Empowering Wind obtained planning permission from the local planning authority. Empowering Wind paid the rents due under the lease up to June 2015, but thereafter failed to pay the rent. On 19 August 2015 the applicant forfeited the lease.”

Therefore, if Mr Justice Arnold really did believe what he was saying was true, that EW paid the rent up until June 2015, he would know that the next installment of rent was for £15,000 including V.A.T payable in September 2015, and therefore it is proven Arnold J knew that no rent was owed to D4 at all on 19 August 2015 when the Club forfeited based on their unwarranted demand of £256,269.89.

However, Mr Justice Arnold learned from the evidence put in by the Club that on 20 December 2016, the Club once again fraudulently claimed to be creditors of EW, only this time, in the sum of £541,308.89 so, he lied to conceal that false claim, and said that the rent was £550,000 knowing that no rent or energy supply was contractually owed.

On 2 February 2017 the Club and their solicitors claimed once again to be creditors of EW, only this time in the sum of £4,111,874.75 of which £4,031,664.80, was for energy they prevented being supplied.

No explanation was ever given as to how the turbine could supply power after the Club refused the connection, nor as to how the invoice the Club were contractually prohibited from invoicing for (because there was no contractual agreement to supply any power), grew from £181,269.89 on 25 June 2015, to £466,308.89 on 20 December 2016, and then to £4,031,664.80 on 2 February 2017.

Sir Geoffrey Vos, the Master of the Rolls, then Chancellor of the High Court came into Mr Millinder’s case to cover up the fraud

After the High Court insolvency registrars, known now as ‘ICCJ’s fraudulently failed to judge’ a series of automatically void civil restraint orders were deployed to conceal the acts of corruption by judges who deliberately failed to administer the law.

They illegally trespassed on Mr Millinder’s privilege of absolute witness immunity for suit, making civil restraint orders they had no jurisdiction to make, to conceal their own fraudulent failure to judge.

Sir Geoffrey was factored in to sustain the restraint order to ensure that their fraud remained concealed (that was their intent).

Mr Millinder’s 28 September 2018 application for a fraud trial

On 5 February 2018, Mr Justice Nugee had found that no rent or energy supply was owed to the Club.

We adduce below the 5-page application notice that Sir Geoffrey Vos presided over:

PM-APP_28_09_2018

At pages 3 – 5 Mr Millinder made it clear that contractually no claims could be established, reciting that very finding by Mr Justice Nugee. Therefore, Sir Geoffrey Vos, knew that only £80,209.95 was claimed by the Club for rent.

On 12 February 2018 in his skeleton counsel for the Club – Ulick Staunton ‘U-turned on the claims

The hearing before Sir Geoffrey of Mr Millinder’s 28 September 2018 application was listed on 14 November 2018.

On 12 November 2018, in his skeleton argument, Mr Staunton obviously lost his bravado, and at paragraph 37, he said this (bold underline for emphasis):

“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, save that Rs claim £25,000 from Earth Energy under the consent order of 16 January 2017“

Knowing of this, Vos C adjourned the hearing, citing some ‘eye problem’ (likely wilful blindness) until 8 February 2019.

On 30 November 2018 Mr Millinder wrote to Vos C and the judicial office setting out that Ulick had u-turned on the claims he admitted could not be established on 9 January 2017 because ‘force majeure has effect’

At paragraph 105 of his judgment, knowing that his underlings defrauded Mr Millinder twice by bypassing the mandatory engaged statutory law on set off, in two separate insolvency proceedings, Sir Geoffrey Vos lied, saying 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”

Obviously, being such a learned experienced and senior insolvency judge of the High Court, and in charge of all the High Court Judges, Sir Geoffrey Vos did know that the ‘forum’ that Mr Millinder could not find, is obviously the mandatory engaged rule of due process that they bypassed to defraud him of his company cross claims.

There was no mention of ‘set off’ / ‘14.25 Insolvency Rules 2016 anywhere in his apparently meticulous judgment, it was all lies.

Knowing that £181,269.89 of the Club’s unwarranted demand deployed to forfeit the lease was for energy supply they were contractually prohibited from invoicing for, and £75,000 for rent that did not fall due under the lease, at paragraph 105 of his judgment, Sir Geoffrey Vos lied yet again to conceal the crucial contractual facts at the heart of the case, to prevent justice being served on the wrongdoers:

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

Yet no mention in the Sir Geoffrey Vos judgment of 8 February 2019 of the £4,111,874.75 claim that Mr Millinder’s application was centered on, nor the completed contractual terms that cannot be diminished.

We’re taking the Government to the constitutionally proper and jurisdictionally independent courts of Hong Kong, People’s Republic of China so that the (allegedly) corrupt UK judiciary cannot continue acting as ‘judges of their own cause‘.

Comments please.