High Court’s Chief ICC Judge Briggs treacherous fraud exposed
November 15, 2025
Fraud exposed: Judge Lord Justice Nugee defacing evidence
Lord Justice Nugee, AKA Christopher George Nugee (D.O.B: 23 January 1959) is a judge of the Court of Appeal. In this bombshell investigatory real evidence based report, we expose a blatant cover up, actual bias and fraud by false representation by Lord Justice Nugee.
Judges can only occupy office whilst on good behavior. Please, ask yourselves after reading this, why is he still there?
Lord Justice Nugee is married to fellow barrister, Emily Thornberry MP, the Labour MP for Islington since 2005, and former Shadow Attorney General for England and Wales.
How constitutionally separate, a marriage between judge and the chief advisor to Government and the Crown on legal affairs?
Download this article in PDF for distribution / printing.
Lord Justice Nugee. Middle: Labour leftie lawyer, Dame Emily Anne Thornberry DBE (married to Nugee) and right, Sir Sadiq Aman Khan, the Mayor of London
In the public interest, pursuant to the maxim of equity ‘justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done‘ we expose historic acts by then Mr Justice Nugee when he was High Court Judge of Chancery.
Compliance rewarded? it would appear that way, after complaints by the victim were covered up, Mr Justice Nugee was given a taxpayer sponsored promotion, to Lord Justice of Appeal. We expose acts by Lord Justice Nugee in 2018 that are, in anyone’s opinion, blatant affronts to justice and fraudulent acts to ensure, ‘justice was not done‘, contrary to the law.
Lord Justice Nugee concealed crucial evidence of fraud
It is ‘fraud to conceal fraud’ (and it is also known as perverting the course of, or obstructing the course of public justice).
In all ex-parte (without notice) financial injunction proceedings the Applicant and its legal advisors are under a strict legal duty of full and frank disclosure. Sounds complex? It really isn’t and we tell it, like we’re telling it to the ordinary man or woman down the pub.
This case involved Middlesbrough Football Club calling on an ex-parte financial injunction application on 9 January 2017 made in the High Court interim applications court of the Insolvency & Companies Court, at the Rolls Building on Fetter Lane, London.
The Club’s injunction was intended to restrain presentation by Earth Energy Investments LLP (‘EEI’‘) of a statutory demand for the liquidated sum of £530,000 (plus commercial rate accrued interest). The demand was based on an assignment of the debt.
Below we exhibit page 4 of the 5 page EEI statutory demand claim against the Club served on them by a process server on 6 January 2017 in person at their Riverside Stadium head office:
The law of assignment in the United Kingdom
The EEI absolute assignment of 29 June 2015
The EEI notice of assignment served on Middlesbrough Football Club on 30 June 2015 (page 1 of 2).
The 29 June 2015 board minute and assignment resolution (page 2 of the 2 page assignment notice).
8 February 2019 – Issue estoppel is effective in relation to the EEI assignment findings by the Chancellor of the High Court in his judgment
Middlesbrough Football Club's 8 January 2017 supporting witness statement by Jeremy Robin Bloom
Lord Justice Nugee and Ulick Staunton’s knowledge of fact & circumstance
In the ‘evidence’ section of this article below, we adduce real evidence in the form of the 88-page official transcript of the 5 February 2018 EEI v Middlesbrough Football Club case.
Below we recite and bold underline the passages spoken during the hearing for emphasis:
From pages 68 – 71 of the transcript:
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: Well, that was the document which Mr Millinder showed me, which is the board minutes.
Mr Staunton: Yeah, right.
Nugee J: And that was one of the documents referred to in, in Penningtons letter of the 11th?
Mr Staunton: Indeed, and its tab, Mr Millinder’s bundle, tab 27 I have it at.
Nugee J: Yes, yes.
Mr Staunton: Second page in. Reading that second paragraph, what’s assigned to EEI are the investments, the £200,000.
Nugee J: Yeah.
Mr Staunton: But not the cause of action, because in this second paragraph, third line:
“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.”
So, it’s still its claim.
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?
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.
Nugee J: Yeah.
Of course, both Lord Justice Nugee and Mr Staunton knew, or they ought to have done, that the assignment on which the demand was based, page 4 of the 5 page demand referred to it, was missing. Therefore, it took no investigation to establish that paragraph 22.2 of Mr Bloom’s ex-parte witness statement dated 8 January 2017 is knowingly false in a material particular.
It is proven beyond doubt that 2-days prior to lying and saying he ‘saw no evidence of the assignment’ it was served on him in hard copy by process server with EEI’s demand by process server who emptied it on the front desk in reception. Mr Bloom had the assignment on which it was based, in his person 2-days prior to denying any knowledge of it, then swearing his witness statement to be true!
The ‘Penningtons Manches LLP’ letter of 11 January 2017 listed 11 documents said to be material information withheld by Middlesbrough Football Club, Womble Bond Dickinson in Newcastle, and Ulick Staunton, counsel instructed to act for them.
Judicial findings of non-disclosure:
At paragraphs 5 – 6 of his 5 February 2018 judgment, Mr Justice Nugee (as he then was) said this:
“5. It is now suggested by Mr Millinder on behalf of EEI that the order of 16th January was obtained as a result of material non disclosure before Mr Justice Arnold on the without notice application on the 9th January. He relies for this on non disclosure of a large number of documents which, as I understand it, supported the statutory demand and which explained the background to the dispute, in particular the connection agreement which, in his submissions to me, he explained was the foundation of his argument that the project was, effectively, killed by Middlesbrough.
6. It is not disputed that those documents were not put before Mr Justice Arnold. I was also shown a note of the hearing in which Mr Staunton, who appeared for Middlesbrough then as he does for Middlesbrough today, says this:
“There is a definition of force majeure in the lease. There is no other reference to force majeure in the lease.”
That was something he repeated before me, but in fact, there was a provision in the lease at schedule 5, paragraph 6, which provided that:
“If either party is prevented for any period of time from performing its obligations under this lease by reason of force majeure, that party shall not be in breach of such obligations for so long as, and to the extent to which such reason shall subsist.”
It is evidential that Lord Justice Nugee found that no money for rent or energy supply was owed to Middlesbrough Football Club for the reason of force majeure having effect, and that Mr Staunton, a man he personally associates with, twice lied and said there was no other reference to a force majeure clause in the lease than the definition, when he knew there was.
Mr Staunton had obviously breached his duty of full and frank disclosure on 9 January 2017 lying and saying there was no force majeure clause in the lease when he knew there was and that in direct consequence, no rent was owed. It was a crucial material fact he lied about, twice during two separate hearings.
At paragraph 8 of his judgment, Mr Justice Nugee said this:
“In this case, two separate grounds were advanced by Middlesbrough, both in the evidence and by Mr Staunton before Mr Justice Arnold. One related to the underlying nature of the claim by EEI, which was a question as to whether it was right that it was Middlesbrough’s fault that the project had collapsed and whether there was a cause of action for the sums which had been thrown away as a result, and it does seem to me that the bulk of the non disclosure went to that issue. The other was a question as to whether EEI had any cause of action vested in it at all.”
We took a screenshot of paragraph 10 of Lord Justice Nugee’s 5 February 2018 ‘purported determination’ below and we underlined what he said for emphasis.
Paragraph 10 of Mr Justice Nugee’s 5 February 2018 ‘purported determination’/caption]
Below we took a screenshot of the original assignment that Lord Justice Nugee, then Mr Justice Nugee had in front of him. We underlined green for emphasis, easily proving the fraud by Mr Justice Nugee made with intent to, and which did make a gain and cause loss to the injured party:
A screenshot we took of the original assignment terms that Lord Justice Nugee had before him – He had the conscious and premeditated intent to falsely represent
Mr Justice Nugee is alleged, with substantive evidence, to have committed fraud by false representation (Section 2(1) Fraud Act 2006) by defacing the crucial evidence, the absolute terms of the assignment, to make his falsely represented version of the assignment, not absolute.
Anyone can compare the original assignment to see where he acted dishonestly, falsely representing the terms of the assignment. Blatant fraud by a senior judge in plain sight.
The motive in doing so is self-revealing and that is, precisely what his co-conspirator, now Master of the Rolls, head of civil justice for England and Wales, found on 8 February 2019:
…was sufficiently clear to amount to valid assignment under section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925.”
The legal framework and public interest
There is overwhelming public interest in preserving the strict rule of full and frank disclosure to protect the interests of the ex-parte respondent who may be exposed to loss consequential of unfair or dishonest failure to disclose evidence and facts. The legal duty is well established in common law judgments of the senior courts.
In Brink’s Mat Ltd v. Elcombe [1988] 1 WLR 1350, the Court of Appeal judge, Lord Justice Gibson, said this:
“Compliance with the duty is important and necessary to ensure that the court meets its own legal obligations to ensure a fair hearing under Article 6 ECHR. If the court considers a hearing on a without notice basis, “it must be able to rely on the party who appears alone to present the evidence and argument in a way which is not merely designed to promote its own interests, but in a fair and even-handed manner, drawing attention to evidence and arguments which it can reasonably anticipate the absent party would wish to make” (§51).
Secondly, whether an applicant has given the court a full and fair presentation of the material is the “ultimate touchstone” of the duty, not simply disclosure of the material. “In a complex case with a large volume of documents, it is not enough if disclosure is made in some part of the material…if that aspect of the evidence and its significance is obscured by an unfair summary or presentation of the case” (§52).
Thirdly, the duty of full and frank disclosure is a very serious duty that may be considered equivalent to the CPR 31 duty of disclosure. The duty must be met by the applicant and their legal advisers equally, and it is incumbent upon English solicitors and barristers to supervise compliance and “ensure that the lay client is aware of the duty of full and frank disclosure and what it means in practice for the purposes of the application in question” (§53). Indeed, the applicant and their legal advisers must together “make the fullest inquiry into the central elements of their case” (§83) if they are to proceed with a without notice application, often because “it will only be the client who is aware of everything which is material” (§53)”
Criminal liability for fraud by failure to disclose information (Section 3(1) Fraud Act 2006
Section 3(1) of the Fraud Act 2006 is an offence is strict liability. It is complete when a party fails to disclose, with the necessary dishonest intend, information he was under a legal duty to have disclosed, with intent to make a gain and to cause loss.
The Crown Prosecution Service guidance for Crown Prosecutors says this of the offence:
“Failure to disclose information
There is no requirement that the failure to disclose must relate to “material” or “relevant “information, nor is there any de minimis provision. If a Defendant disclosed 90% of what he was under a legal duty to disclose but failed to disclose the (possibly unimportant) remaining 10%, the actus reus of the offence could be complete. Under such circumstances the Defendant would have to rely on the absence of dishonesty. Such cases can be prosecuted under the Act if the public interest requires it, though such cases will be unusual.”
Conclusion
It was said by Mr Justice Nugee at paragraph 8 of his 5 February 2018 judgment that:
“Two separate grounds were advanced“. One was “whether it was right that it was Middlesbrough’s fault that the project had collapsed and whether there was a cause of action for the sums thrown away as a result.
Fundamentally, that ground laid in the operative clause, force majeure in the lease, which suspended obligations under the lease 96-days into the 365-day period contractually provided for free of rent.
It is evident that Lord Justice Nugee knew that his associate, Mr Staunton twice lied about the clause of force majeure in the lease, the most crucial contractual material fact.
The second ground said by Lord Justice Nugee to be “a question as to whether EEI had any cause of action vested in it at all”, was based assignment of the investment that the Club and their lawyers withheld and lied about, after having had it in their possession in hard copy by process server with the demand, just two-days prior.
Had the assignment and the notice been produced it would have been found that the EEI demand for £530,000 was a demand for a liquidated sum immediately due and payable that EEI was entitled to.
The Club and their lawyers dishonestly withheld 100% of the material they were under legal duties to have disclosed whilst Mr Bloom made a knowingly false witness statement.
Mr Justice Nugee abused his position acting with genuine bias in concealment of fraud. It is fraud to conceal fraud.
After having read, and therefore established that the terms of the assignment on which the EEI demand is based is absolute, Mr Justice Nugee committed fraud by false representation at paragraph 10 of this order by defacing the evidence, fundamentally altering the terms and then relying on his alteration to imply that the assignment was not effective when Section 136(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925 determines it is.
Contrary to the long-established principle ‘no advantage shall be gained by fraud’ Mr Justice Nugee concealed all the crucial evidence and facts to prevent justice being served on the perpetrators, then awarded them costs, found perpetrating their fraud in the face of justice.
Conclusively, a serious affront to justice and fraudulent misconduct by Lord Justice Nugee who acted contrary to the public interest and his official duties with intent to have made a gain and to have cause loss.
The fraudulent winding up of EEI founded by their £25,000 proceeds of crime originated from this offending.
LINKS TO EVIDENCE
We include links to the real evidence relied on in this investigation:
- The official 88-page transcript & 6-page judgment of 5 February 2018.
- The Penningtons Manches LLP (EEI’s lawyer’s) 11 January 2017 letter complaining of material non-disclosure which the Club and their lawyers failed in their duty to have disclosed in order to conceal their obvious fraud on 9 January 2017, along with their response dated 12 January 2017, in breach of their ‘continuing legal duty to have disclosed‘.
- The unwarranted demand with menaces (blackmail) in the sum of £619,774.48 arising from the knowingly false application to Bristol County Court for a High Court Writ of Execution in the fictitious sum of £555,000 against EEI leading to the Firm being blackmailed on 21 November 2017 with the alleged ‘debt’ said to have arisen from the fraudulently obtained order of 16 January 2017 purportedly agreeing to pay the Club £25,000 that was automatically set off against EEI’s claim of £530,000 plus accrued statutory interest.
Invitation to comment
Judicial independence and an ‘incorruptible’ judiciary they say. Lies, all flagrant lies, we say.
Lord Justice Nugee, the Court of Appeal President, the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office, the Lord Chancellor, Lady Chief Justice, Attorney General’s Office, City of London Police, Director of Public Prosecutions at the Crown Prosecution Service and the Constitution Committee of the House of Lords have been invited to comment.
Help us to help you, share widely, and please consider a donation to our fighting fund.
What would the man down the pub think?
Comments please.
