Paul Millinder’s Battle Against the British Justice System
February 15, 2025
Corrupt Met and City police shun the rule of law
April 9, 2025
Written by John Barwell
For years, businessman Paul Millinder has been labelled a vexatious litigant by the British judiciary, his relentless pursuit of justice dismissed as an obsessive campaign against perceived wrongs. Yet, a deeper examination of his case reveals something far more troubling: a pattern of judicial maneuvering that raises serious concerns about the integrity of the UK’s legal system.
The Expanding Dossier of Allegations
Recent reports compiled by Millinder and his supporters contain over 500 pages of allegations detailing judicial misconduct, fraudulent insolvency proceedings, and the suppression of critical evidence. The reports accuse 23 senior judges, the Insolvency Service, the Government Legal Department (GLD), and even the former Attorney General’s Office of engaging in a collateral fraud conspiracy exceeding £10 million.
At the centre of these allegations is Millinder’s long-running dispute with Middlesbrough Football Club (MFC), in which he claims the courts unlawfully deprived him of his statutory insolvency set-off rights under Rule 14.25 of the Insolvency (England & Wales) Rules 2016. The reports suggest that key judicial figures actively facilitated a fraudulent insolvency scheme designed to extinguish Millinder’s claims while shielding MFC and its legal representatives from liability.
A Systemic Cover-Up?
Among the most damning claims is that former Chief Registrar Baister, acting beyond his judicial authority, deliberately ignored insolvency law by permitting MFC to lodge fictitious claims against Millinder’s companies. The dossier outlines a six-stage fraud allegedly orchestrated by Anthony Hannon, the Official Receiver of London, who is accused of fabricating debt claims to justify the liquidation of Millinder’s business interests.
Letter from the Police & Crime Commissioner for Thames Valley to the Insolvency Service of 31 October 2019 in relation to allegedly false proofs of debt
STANSFELD-LETTERA key legal precedent, Stein v Blake, establishes that set-off must be applied before an insolvency order is made. Yet, according to Millinder, both the judiciary and insolvency office holders knowingly breached this rule, resulting in a fraudulent winding-up order.
Supporting this claim is a 2017 letter from Prospect Law, which explicitly urged the Insolvency Service to reject MFC’s fraudulent £4.1 million proof of debt claim. The letter, included in the report we have reviewed, was allegedly ignored, enabling the fraud to proceed unchecked.
Judicial Retaliation: The Use of Civil Restraint Orders
Rather than addressing Millinder’s allegations on their merits, the courts imposed a series of Extended Civil Restraint Orders (ECROs) and General Civil Restraint Orders (GCROs) to block him from pursuing further claims. These were later escalated to a Section 42 All Proceedings Order, effectively barring him from the UK legal system.
Millinder asserts that these orders were unlawfully imposed to prevent scrutiny of the fraud. He maintains that he has been immune from civil suit since 21 December 2017, when he first provided evidence as a witness for Earth Energy Investments LLP in proceedings against MFC.
“The courts labelled me vexatious because they didn’t want to rule on the fraud,” Millinder states. “Their strategy was to deny me access to justice and hope I would give up.”
The Prison Sentence: A Warning to Other Litigants?
In November 2022, Millinder was sentenced to 15 months in prison for contempt of court. The judgment alleged that he continued to litigate in breach of court orders. Millinder, however, contends that the ruling was politically motivated and aimed at silencing him.
The Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Thames Valley appears to have taken his allegations seriously. In an October 2019 letter, former Police Commissioner Anthony Stansfeld questioned why the courts upheld MFC’s £4.1 million claim despite clear evidence that no debt existed.
“If the claim is obviously false, why has it not been rejected?” Stansfeld asked. His letter went unanswered.
AI Analysis: The Suppressed Evidence
Recent advancements in AI-powered legal analysis have enabled Millinder’s team to conduct forensic examinations of court records. According to an AI investigation contained in the report we reviewed, an automated search of judicial determinations failed to find a single reference to Rule 14.25—despite its centrality to the dispute.
“There were 341 references to ‘set-off’ in our filings,” Millinder explains. “Yet the courts pretended it didn’t exist. This was not an oversight. It was deliberate fraud.”
Legal Challenge in Hong Kong
With UK legal avenues exhausted, Millinder is now turning to Hong Kong’s courts, hoping that a jurisdiction outside British judicial influence will independently assess his claims.
Legal analysts suggest this move could be a turning point. “If he can persuade a Hong Kong court to accept jurisdiction, it could force a re-examination of the entire case,” says a legal expert. “It’s a high-risk strategy, but given what’s happened in the UK, it’s understandable.”
A Legal System on Trial?
Millinder’s battle has evolved beyond his personal case. It now raises fundamental questions about the integrity of the British judiciary and whether civil restraint orders are being misused to silence legitimate claims.
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has remained silent on allegations of misconduct involving high-profile law firms representing MFC. The Government Legal Department, accused of colluding in the suppression of evidence, continues to defend the case against Deuda Ltd despite overwhelming evidence of fraud.
“What we are witnessing is institutional corruption on a scale the public doesn’t yet fully understand,” Millinder warns. “This is not just about me. It’s about whether the UK legal system serves the people—or shields those in power.”
For now, Millinder refuses to be silenced. Whether the courts of Hong Kong will offer him the hearing he was denied in Britain remains to be seen. What is certain is that his fight is far from over.
Watch ‘Operation Blackjack’s 2-part video documentary on the case and how AI justice exposed it
This article was written independently by Legal Lens
Help us to help you, like, comment and share this article far and wide.
