ICC Judge Jones High Court insolvency based fraud
November 20, 2025
HHJ Pelling KC (His Honour Judge), AKA, Philip Mark Pelling, is a Deputy High Court Judge with a reputation for dealing with cases involving allegations of wrongdoing against members of the legal sector ‘circumvented the law, crucial evidence and facts‘.
We expose another ‘judge who decided not to judge.’ with historic fraudulent and grossly negligent acts by HHJ Pelling KC, whilst sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge of the Insolvency & Companies Court in June 2018.
Don’t get us wrong, we are not trying to single Judge Pelling out in this report, far from it, Judge Pelling is number 7 in chronological order in order of their involvement, of 33 ‘judicial transgressors’ we describe as ‘The Cards of Injustice’ in our ‘Operation Blackjack’ 5-year intelligence investigation into judicial corruption looking at this case and others.
In our sequel of reports, we show the true face of the cards, and expose the truth behind the double-dealing. Criminality doesn’t carry an expiration date, and ‘it is fraud to conceal fraud‘.
In 2019 HHJ Philip Mark Pelling KC was promoted to judge in charge of the London Commercial Court. Taxpayer sponsored promotions for following orders? You decide.
In March 2022, this Firm acquired a high profile case alleging central government and judicial corruption. Originating the case was Mr Millinder’s development project, what was to be ‘Europe’s First Wind Powered Football Stadium‘ , at the Labour turned Tory politician, Steve Gibson OBE’s (Chairman), Middlesbrough Football Club.
We uncover serious judicial corruption, a team of ‘judges who deliberately do not judge‘ enabling the Club and their affiliates to evade the law whilst the injured party was penalised for seeking remedy for wrongdoing!
Completed contractual terms granting rights that were later denied to the Developer – defeating the purpose:
Between 10 October 2012 – 4 January 2013 the connection configuration, implementation timeframe, costs and the Connection Offer with the Distribution Network Operator were finalised in open email correspondence between the parties.
The Distribution Network Operator, Northern Powergrid’s completed connection arrangement required the Club to take ownership of its dedicated substations, to form a private network, that in turn the turbine infrastructure was to have connected into.
It was express requirement that the Club was to take ownership of its two dedicated on-site substations to form a private network, that the turbine was to have in turn then connected into
If, during the option period a party became dissatisfied with either the technical or commercial terms being implemented, the aggrieved party can negate without significant financial or contractual commitment.
Upon exercise of the option the side agreements implemented become a completed collateral contract part of the lease deed.
It was not until 17 June 2013 the Developer paid the Club a £200,000 lease premium on exercising the option and completing the lease.
The crucial material fact withheld by the Club in breach of their legal duty to have disclosed during ex-parte financial injunction proceedings:
On 30 April 2015 the Club refused to facilitate the private network connection that the turbine was to have connected into, preventing the Developer’s turbine from being connected to the grid and suppling power.
The recital to the option to lease (the contractual purpose) was this:
(A) The Owner owns certain freehold Property at Riverside Stadium, Middlesbrough, Cleveland TS3 6RS… The Owner has agreed to grant the Developer an option to lease the Property in accordance with the terms of this agreement.
(B) The Developer intends to construct, connect to the Grid and operate a 90m high wind, turbine at the Property, in accordance with the conditions of the Planning Permission dated 7 July 2008…”
After preventing the project from connecting to the grid, defeating the lease and supply agreement intending the turbine to first operate, the Club unlawfully demanded payment of rent and energy supply! Then forfeited the lease for non-payment!
Widespread publicity prior to the Club and their lawyers ‘killing the project’, destroying the Developer’s business and international reputation with lies then judicial cheating to prevent justice being served on them
Crucial public interest principles:
If justice was not done in this case a dangerous precedent of totalitarianism would prevail, whereby nobody could be confident in relying on the justice system, the completed terms of a contract, or on the statutory rights and protections granted by the law, to remedy a wrongdoing.
Where there’s wrongdoing there must be remedy:
Equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy, meaning essentially that in common law the one who has suffered the wrong has the stronger hand. That is, until the double-dealers took over the game, with more wrongdoing, and remedy oppressively denied.
Download this article in PDF.
We tell it for the ordinary man or woman down the pub in this compelling evidence based report.
Boro to install 136m-tall wind turbine at the Riverside Stadium
Teesside Live | Radar row at Middlesbrough FC threatens football wind farm …
The Guardian | Middlesbrough FC: Energy firm sues Durham Tees Valley Airport
BBC |
Middlesbrough FC turbine scheme heads for High Court | ||
Firstly, the 2013 – 2015 mainstream news in relation to Empowering Wind MFC Ltd (‘EW‘) made it widespread public knowledge that the project first suffered a delay caused by a third party that prevented the turbine from lawful operation until that delay was successfully resolved. (Contractual force majeure).
Secondly, by 15 September 2015 it was announced that EW was commencing High Court action against the Club for refusing the connection, preventing the turbine from being connected to the grid.
Without a connection, the turbine cannot operate..
Logic would imply that EW has a large claim against the Club for that.
The doctrine of wrongdoing / illegality ‘ex turpi causa non oritur actio’
As a matter of legal principle, one cannot defeat a contract by preventing one’s counter-party from performing on the rights granted, and then demand payment as if performance of the contract was unaffected.
Long-established English constitutional and common law principles, and indeed a statutory legal framework, is in place, ordinarily designed to protect people and their businesses from such fraudulent and or abusive treatment.
The common law doctrine in this case, prevented the Court from lending its aid to the Club’s obviously dishonourable cause, yet, the Court didn’t just lend its aid to the dishonour, it became the fraud and dishonour, and they appear to have been largely relying on HHJ Pelling KC, to cover it up for them.
The Millinder case was essentially about the fact that contractually the Club’s claim could not possibly be established after the Club refused the connection or anyway, and that the investment had been assigned so that the debt was collected in a separate cause of action by EW’s parent, EEI.
The mandatory law of due process: Insolvency set off:
The 15 September 2015 article announces a claim exceeding £10 million against the Club for ultimately refusing the connection. It doesn’t take a legal beagle to establish that without a connection, the turbine cannot operate!
It doesn’t take any investigation therefore to establish that there are pre-liquidation claims between EW and the Club arising from those deeds from which EW was granted the right to ‘construct, connect to the grid and operate’ the wind turbine, on payment to the Club of the £200,000 lease premium.
Our Firm’s 23-minute documentary produced in response after Mr Justice Fancourt came back into this Firm’s interim case in January 2024 concealing the crucial evidence and facts by preventing the Claimant from being heard
Illegal trespass on Mr Millinder’s privilege of absolute witness immunity from suit:
Mr Justice Fancourt, like HHJ Pelling KC, had impermissibly and unlawfully trespassed on Mr Millinder’s privilege of absolute witness immunity from suit in 2020, essentially making civil restraint orders to conceal fraud, after the evidence and crucial facts Mr Millinder first gave as a witness, was suppressed and negated, throughout the civil proceedings.
The crucial evidence and the contractual facts Mr Millinder first gave as a witness to Police from 9 January 2017 and in Court as a witness for EEI, from 15 November 2017, was concealed throughout.
Mr Justice Fancourt came back into this Firm’s case in January 2024, after Mr Justice Miles had found the fraud that HHJ Pelling KC had covered up in June 2018!
This Firm’s CEO’s 2008 Court of Appeal case in relation to witness immunity from civil actions:
Martin Richard Walsh (pictured below), Managing Director of this Firm, capital markets investor and resident of Hong Kong, lost an appeal in 2008 because the outspoken political blogger, Paul Staines, AKA ‘Guido Fawkes‘ of the ‘Order Order’ website, relied on the doctrine of witness immunity from suit.
What’s good for the goose, must also be for the gander?
One law fits all, does it not?
We include the Court of Appeal judgment in Sprecher Grier Halberstam LLP v Walsh [2008] EWCA Civ 1324. which featured heavily in this Firm’s skeleton argument dated 23 January 2024, the one that Mr Justice Fancourt prevented from being aired in Court.
Left: Managing Director of this Firm, Martin Richard Walsh, and right, Paul Staines, AKA Guido Fawkes, a former business associate of Mr Walsh
The case law – witness immunity from suit:
Martin Walsh brought a claim against Paul Staines (Guido Fawkes) and Edward Judge (Counsel for Staines) for deceit and conspiracy against SGH LLP, who, on the evidence, seriously misrepresented financial information to secure an ex-parte financial freezing order in breach of the strict rule of full and frank disclosure.
The court held the claim had no real prospect of success and was bound to fail, focusing on Mr Staines’s absolute privilege of witness immunity from suit.
In the SGH v Walsh 2008 Court of Appeal case, the Court recited well-known final judgments by the House of Lords on the doctrine of witness immunity, which applies equally to Mr Millinder, as it did to Mr Staines and his legal advisors.
Below, we recite those salient passages from the SGH v Walsh judgment, highlighted for emphasis:
The law relating to witness immunity
“39. The doctrine is well settled. In Watson v M’Ewan [1905] A.C. 480, 486, the Earl of Halsbury L.C. said:
“By complete authority, including the authority of this House, it has been decided that the privilege of a witness, the immunity from responsibility in an action when evidence has been given by him in a court of justice, is too well established now to be shaken. Practically I may say that in my view it is absolutely unarguable – it is settled law and cannot be doubted. The remedy against a witness who has given evidence which is false and injurious to another is to indict him for perjury; but for very obvious reasons, the conduct of legal procedure by courts of justice, with the necessity of compelling witnesses to attend, involves as one of the necessities of the administration of justice the immunity of witnesses from actions being brought against them in respect of evidence they have given. So far the matter, I think, is too plain for argument.”
40. A more modern exposition of the rationale for the rule is given by Lord Hutton in Darker v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police [2001] 1 A.C. 435, 464:
“… in order to shield honest witnesses from the vexation of having to defend actions against them and to rebut an allegation that they were actuated by malice the courts have decided that it is necessary to grant absolute immunity to witnesses in respect of their words in court even though this means that the shield covers the malicious and dishonest witness as well as the honest one.”
He added at p. 468:
“Furthermore, the authorities make it clear … that where the immunity exists it is given to those who deliberately and maliciously make false statements; the immunity is not lost because of the wickedness of the person who claims immunity.”
41. In Marrinan v Vibart [1963] 1 Q.B. 234, 238 Salmon J. held:
“It is true that in nearly all the reported cases in which the principles to which I have alluded were laid down, the form of action was for damages for libel or slander, but in my judgment these principles in no way depend upon the form of action. In Hargreaves v Bretherton [1959] 1 Q.B. 45, an unsuccessful attempt was made to evade the immunity to which I have referred by suing for damages for perjury. Counsel for the plaintiff attempted to distinguish that case on the ground that an action for damages for perjury is unknown to the law, whereas an action for damages for conspiracy is of respectable lineage. As far as it goes, the distinction is a sound one. It does not, however, affect the point that Hargreaves v Bretherton demonstrates that the immunity to which I have referred is not only an immunity to be sued for damages in libel or slander. The immunity, in my judgment, is an immunity from any form of civil action.”
ICC Judge Jones jumped all over Mr Millinder’s privilege of immunity from suit on 26 March 2018 – Mr Millinder was made the Second Applicant. Judge Pelling, then Mr Justice Fancourt and all the rest, jumped over it again – They had no jurisdiction:
Mr Millinder has been absolutely immune from suit in respect of the evidence and facts he first gave to Police from 9 January 2017 and throughout the proceedings.
The position is that:
ALL THE CIVIL ACTIONS AGAINST MR MILLINDER AND ALL THE CIVIL RESTRAINT ORDERS ARE AUTOMATICALLY VOID FROM THE OUTSET FOR THE REASON WELL ESTABLISHED, NOTWITHSTANDING OF COURSE, THAT NO ‘JUDGE’ HAD JURISDICTION TO CONCEAL FRAUD WITH ONE ANYWAY!
Below, we took a photo of p.2 of the ‘purported determination’ founded by the alleged fraudulent abuse of judicial powers on the part of ICC Judge Jones, his judgment of 26 March 2018:
Paragraph 2 of the judgment by ICC Judge Jones of 26 March 2018 which we underlined red for emphasis
Below we adduce a photograph we took of Judge Pelling’s 28 June 2018 judgment which is a blatant affront to the mandatory engaged rule on set off, as it is plain and simple lies.
It is evident that ICC Judge Jones made Mr Millinder the second applicant, and HHJ Pelling was under official duties to have read that judgment.
Any judge reading p.2 of ‘Judge Jones’ judgment could tell he was acting without jurisdiction.
The Club only just made an application to trespass on Mr Millinder’s privilege of witness immunity from suit, but Jones pre-determined it lying to make Mr Millinder the Second Applicant, by that judgment.
The front page of the judgment makes Mr Millinder the second applicant.
Mr Millinder, as the second applicant, exercised his right under CPR 3.1(7) to set aside Jones’s order and Judge Pelling failed to deal with it at all.
Judge Pelling is evidenced LYING at p.16, saying the only remedy was to appeal, and that it was only available to EEI!
Judge Pelling is further evidenced LYING at p.16 saying that the Club’s proofs were not admitted in the formal sense, knowing that they were.
It is evident at p.17 that Judge Pelling knew the statement he made at p.16 were BLATANTLY FALSE, because he set out; that of the £4,900,000 in claims, only £770,000 are Mr Millinder’s, the rest is formal 14.4 proof of debt form accepted by Mr Hannon, the Liquidator ‘in fraud of the bankrupt laws’ on 2 February 2017!
In our previous report exposing the serious judicial misconduct of ICC Judge Jones, we showed you the 3 decisions made by the liquidator in respect of the Club’s proofs of debt.
Judge Pelling must have known decisions were made to deliberately fail to administer the law, because he was one of the ones that did precisely the same, in respect of both EW and EEI!
On 12 November 2018 – Ulick Staunton, counsel for the Club ‘U-turned’ on the Club’s claims:
Literally, as it sounds, knowing that no money has ever been contractually owed to the Club (including the £256,269.89 unwarranted demand they made against EW first claiming to be creditors), were retracted by the Club’s barrister in writing at p.37 of his skeleton dated 12 November 2018:
“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.”
On 5 October 2018 ICC Judge Jones illegally trespassed on Mr Millinder’s absolute immunity awarding costs founded by his and their fraud:
The proceedings brought by EEI on 15 November 2017 were founded by the Clubs £4.1 million claim, which was the third proof of debt that the Liquidator had decided, contrary to law, to admit against EW.
Acting in fraudulent breach of duty and without jurisdiction, exactly 38-days after the Club’s barrister retracted the claims against EW, knowing they are false, acting with them, Jones sought to make a gain and to have caused loss consequential of the Club’s £4.1 million fraud by false representation contrary to Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006.
Jones lied in his judgment, saying that the liquidator made no decision in respect of the proof of debt, knowing they all decided to evade the law, to make gains and to have caused loss of over £10 million to Mr Millinder.
Due to systemic corruption, they all remain at large.
Here’s the 5 October 2018 order made by Jones after Judge Pelling assisted the offenders:
ICC Judge Jones awarded the defendants £44,536.84 for their fraud and Jones’s fraudulent abuse by concealing it for them and failing to judge !
In September 2023 Mr Justice Miles found the fraud that Judge Pelling covered up in June 2018:
On 20 September 2023 Mr Justice Miles (now Lord Justice Miles), ordered a 2.5 day trial of this Firm’s application, which was disposed of by Fancourt J in less than 10-minutes whilst he failed to touch on the crucial issues of ‘set off‘ or ‘witness immunity‘, which is what the case before him was all about!
The 20 September 2023 order by Mr Justice Miles & the non-determined application pertaining to it that Mr Justice Fancourt concealed
It is evident that Mr Justice Miles examined this Firm’s interim application of 7 September 2023 and found it necessary as we applied for, to list it for a 2.5 day fraud trial, categorically stating this:
“The application is highly contentious, involves serious allegations (including of fraud), and depends on a long and complicated history. The application notice seeks a substantial hearing. The usual position is that hearings of this length are heard in person. In the exercise of my discretion I do not consider that it is appropriate to depart from this and allow a remote hearing“
In June 2018 when the applications before him pleaded it, HHJ Pelling KC lied, condemning Mr Millinder’s case as ‘no more or less than bound to fail‘, 3 times over, to invent a civil restraint order, to conceal the fraud!
TAB-1.5______ORDER-&-APP-07-09-2023
Forgery by the Judge of the EW – EEI assignment of the debt
The crucial evidence proving the EEI claim against the Club is the assignment on which it was based.
Judge Pelling appeared to place great emphasis on relying on what Mr Justice Nugee did, so he knew, or ought to have done, that Mr Justice Nugee forged the terms of the assignment, but uncoincidentally, made no reference to that in his purported determinations, nor that Mr Staunton used the false instrument, to mislead the Court on 11 April 2018 in respect of the same crucial material facts.
Essentially, what happened was that on 5 February 2018, after finding that no money was contractually owed to the Club, because the operative clause of ‘force majeure’ suspended the obligation to pay rent, Mr Justice Nugee as he then was, acted fraudulently by falsely representing the terms of the absolute assignment:
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
Lord Justice Nugee committed forgery and fraud by false representation defacing the crucial evidence and facts in the proceedings
Mr Justice Nugee, then a High Court Judge, forged the terms of the EW to EEI assignment, then relying on his falsified version of the assignment to make a gain and to cause loss to EEI, and to prevent justice being served on the Club.
The motive for doing so could not be clearer…
EEI was, by virtue of serving the notice of assignment on the Club on 30 June 2015, granted statutory rights to recover the debt, those rights are conferred in Section 136(1)(a), 136(1)(b) & 136(1)(c) of the Law of Property Act 1925. The act that expressly affirms that ‘any absolute assignment of which notice has been given… is effectual in law‘.
Mr Justice Nugee, now Lord Justice Nugee of the Court of Appeal, defaced the crucial evidence, and it is now plain for all to see.
HHJ Pelling KJ and successive ‘Judges’ including Mr Justice Fancourt, dishonestly deprived Mr Millinder of the rights granted by the Law of Property Act 1925, to deprive him of his own investment in the wind turbine project!
What would the ordinary man or woman down the pub think?
Hot topic? High Court Judge forged a crucial document to someone else’s prejudice – to defraud a party of over half a million pounds? Or just another day in the life of corrupt Britain?
On 11 April 2018 in a rigged without jurisdiction proceeding before Chief ICC Judge Briggs, blatantly corrupt barrister, Ulick Staunton, acting for the Club relied on Mr Justice Nugee’s forgery, lying about it and saying this:
A photograph of page 15 of the 41 page official transcript of proceedings on 11 April 2018 underlined red for emphasis.
The offence of Section 3 Forgery & Counterfeiting Act 1981
The EEI claim of the statutory demand of 6 January 2017 was based on the absolute assignment, which Mr Justice Nugee had found was one of the crucial documents withheld in breach of the Club’s legal duty of full and frank disclosure during their ex-parte (without notice) financial injunction proceeding designed to prevent EEI from recovering the liquidated sum of the demand, of £530,000, of which £200,000 was the lease premium paid to the Club!
The ‘Registrars’ of the Insolvency & Companies Court, now known as ‘ICC Judges’, had defeated the pari passu distribution principle amongst the body of EW and EEI creditors by fraudulently evading / contracting out, the mandatory engaged rule of insolvency set off to defraud Mr Millinder of over £10 million vested in EW, and the £650,000 including interest, vested in EEI.
Argument substantiated by final judgments of the House of Lords and Supreme Court on insolvency set off
To cut a long story short, the bottom line is that both the House of Lords in Stein v Blake, and the Supreme Court in Bresco Electrical Services v Lonsdale, finally determined that ‘set off is mandatory and takes effect on commencement of an insolvency process‘.
The judges involved decided that law did not apply in Mr Millinder’s case, bypassing the mandatory law to defraud Mr Millinder of the rights granted by the statutory law, not just once, but twice in two different insolvencies affecting the same person.
In June 2020, the Supreme Court in Bresco Electrical Services, said this at p.29 – 30 of the final judgment on the issue of insolvency set off:
“One example is the balance of contingent or prospective claims under IR 14.25(5). Within the liquidation, a net balance owing to the creditor must be pursued by proof of debt in the ordinary way. The liquidator is entitled to be paid the full amount of any net balance owing by the creditor, and may exercise any available remedies for its quantification and recovery, including litigation, arbitration or ADR: see IR 14.25(4) and (5).
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”
What was before HHJ Pelling KC in June 2018
What happened in relation to EW and its cross claim exceeding 10 million against the Club”
On 15 November 2017, EEI had applied to a High Court Judge to deal with allegations of fraud by non-disclosure and false representation during ex-parte financial injunction proceedings, and to deal with false claims made by the Club, purporting to be creditors of EW, when no such claims can be contractually established.
ICC Judge Jones was factored in, to conceal the crucial fact that the Liquidator, Mr Hannon of the Insolvency Service, was colluding with the Club and their lawyers, with acts notably described by the courts as acts ‘in fraud upon the bankrupt laws‘, automatically engaging the rule on anti-deprivation (See: Belmont Park v BNY):
P.2 of the Supreme Court’s final judgment in Belmont: said this:
“In 1812 Lord Eldon LC confirmed that a term which is “adopted with the express object of taking the case out of reach of the Bankrupt Laws” is “a direct fraud upon the Bankrupt Laws” from which a party cannot benefit: Higinbotham v Holme (1812) 19 Ves Jun 88, 92.”
Hannon, the Official Receiver of London, EW liquidator, did what the former Chief Regisatrar Baister who installed him did, he shirked his fiduciary duty to have administered the law, when between 15 August 2016 – 19 September 2016 Chief Registrar Baister wound up EW after bypassing the law on set off, creating an automatically void insolvency order which failed to comply with the statutory requirement.
‘There are not varying degrees of nullity.‘
There was no singular reference to the crucial point of law’ insolvency set off, anywhere in the ICC Judge Jones judgment of 26 March 2018, and yet that was what the case was all about.
The application before HHJ Pelling KC asked him to set aside the automatically void order by ICC Judge Jones founded by his obvious fraudulent abuse, bias and failure to judge.
The EEI claim that extinguished the Club’s automatically void £25,000 claim by winding up petition
What happened in relation to EEI, was that on 21 March 2018, after first working for the Club and covering up their material non-disclosure, finding that no money was owed to the Club, and then forging the terms of the EEI absolute assignment to make his not absolute, Mr Justice Nugee, a High Court Judge, listed EEI’s application to set aside the order of 16 January 2017 (said to originate the Club’s £25k), for a hearing in the usual way.
6-days later, along came the cheat, Ulick Staunton, counsel for the Club, who appears to have colluded with ICC Judge Barber, a Master / Registrar, not only to defeat the High Court Judge’s order and the Claimant (EEI), but to have bypassed the law on set off, because the Club never had a claim to prove, but for failure by the Court to have administered the law.
Courtesy of the fraud by Ulick Staunton, the Club, the now Lord Justice Nugee and ICC Judge Barber, on 28 March 2018 EEI was wound up, defrauding Mr Millinder of over £650,000, when the company had no debt.
That’s what Chief ICC Judge Briggs installed HHJ Pelling to the case to cover up, and he did precisely that…
The fraudulent 'purported determinations in June 2018 by HHJ Pelling KC
In all the 29-pages produced by HHJ Pelling KC, there’s no single reference to the crucial terms ‘set off’ as in insolvency set off, or ‘14.25’ as in 14.25 of the Insolvency Rules 2016.
HHJ Pelling KC was put in to cover up the fraud, so he covered up the Court’s deliberate (fraudulent failure) to administer the mandatory law in respect of the Club’s false claims, to defraud Mr Millinder of millions.
We exhibit below HHJ Pelling’s fraudulent ‘purported determinations’ deliberately concealing not only the fraud by Mr Hannon, the Club, Chief Registrar Baister, ICC Judge Barber and Chief ICC Judge Briggs, but also the forged terms of the assignment by the now Lord Justice Nugee.
HHJ Pelling KC was working for the Defendants, but yet, on 8 February 2019, the then Chancellor of the High Court, found that the assignment terms are effective according to Section 136(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925.
On 6 November 2020 Mr Justice Fancourt found that the assignment from EW to EEI was never determined and neither were the ‘substantive issues’
In the open Court before High Court Judge, Mr Justice Fancourt, it was found after examination of the ‘purported determinations’, including those by HHJ Pelling KC and the former Chancellor of the High Court, Sir Geoffrey Vos ‘ that in fact, the assignment, which Section 136(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925 determines as being ‘effectual in law’ was never decided at all!
We include below citations from the 6 November 2020 proceedings in Mr Millinder’s case.
Set off was extensively mentioned by Mr Millinder, but again, Mr Justice Fancourt evaded the crucial evidence and facts.
Masters of spin and deceit? The official transcripts reveal all.
“Fancourt J: Well, it seems to me the position is that the, the validity of the assignment by EW MFC to EE was never actually decided by a judge at a, at a trial. It is just that various opportunities to raise it along the way were never taken and then Mr Millinder was not in the position to do so because ENW was in liquidation, so he could not raise the point. And then EE also went into liquidation, did it not?”
Mr Justice Fancourt must have known that the ‘various opportunities to raise it along the way were never taken’ because his flagrantly corrupt colleagues in the Insolvency & Companies Court defrauding Mr Millinder by depriving him of the statutory set off rights. There was no single reference to ‘set off’ or ‘14.25 anywhere in Mr Justice Fancourt’s judgment either, whilst evident that Mr Millinder put the point forward in the open Court before him!
Mr Justice Fancourt was referring to the completed contractual terms in EW and EEI’s favour:
“Fancourt J: The Chancellor was saying was that, that the underlying substantive issues have never in fact been tried, that there was an opportunity to raise such substantive issues at an earlier time, but they were not taken as points at the right time and, because of orders that were then made, it is too late to try to raise them now. That, that is really his line of reasoning, I think”
Fancourt J knew, or he ought to have known, that the ‘points not taken at the right time’ refereed to the fraudulent conspiracy by the corrupt judiciary and the Defendants acting together to circumvent the law, to make gains and to have caused loss, and to have prevented justice being served on themselves and each other.
The then Chancellor, Sir Geoffrey Vos also bypassed the crucial law, whilst negating to account for the fact that Ulick Staunton, ‘U-turned’ on the claims on 12 November 2018, knowing that no claims can possibly be established.
It is fraud to conceal fraud, and evidentially, nothing in Mr Millinder’s case that ever needed to be determined, ever was, because those are the points that win his case.
CONCLUSION
Welcome to the totalitarian world of lawless two-tier justice Britain:
Where providing immunity to corrupt judges, government officials and their cronies takes priority over the rule of law, equality and justice!
The establishment makes sure the ball’s always in their court, literally.
The Club had no worries about its poor performance on the pitch!
As Jock Stein said, “If you’re good enough, the referee doesn’t matter” and in this case, all the referees, the purportedly independent fact finders, were playing for the other side, so they covered up the facts.
Fundamentally, our report reveals that Judge Pelling had no jurisdiction to have certified any of Mr Millinder’s applications as ‘TWM’. That acts in doing so were affronts to the Court of Appeal’s final public policy decisions on the issue of ‘TWM’ by the Court of Appeal.
No judge had jurisdiction to conceal fraud and failure to administer the law with a restraint order designed to penalise and curtail a witness or plaintiff from giving evidence.
HHJ Pelling KC and the Insolvency & Companies Court’s severe affront to justice and the final Court of Appeal judgments on the points at issue
No mention of set off from start to finish, because that’s what the case was all about!
At the heart of the EW claim and the fact that the Club’s claims are false, are the ‘substantive issues’ that Mr Justice Fancourt found had never been tried!
Contractually no rent or energy supply was owed to the Club, proving the cross claim vested in EW, so they evaded the terms and bypassed the law!
The duty of inquiry / going behind a judgment – no res judicata in insolvency proceedings where it be shown there’s no debt owed in truth and reality
Dawodu v American Express [2001] BPIR 983, Etherton J provided detailed analysis of judgments from the early 1800’s on the duty of inquiry / going behind judgments and he finally determined what’s required before exercise of this inquiry is this:
“My only qualification to the summary by Warner J. is that the cases establish that what is required before the Court is prepared to investigate a judgment debt, in the absence of an outstanding appeal or an application to set it aside, is some fraud, collusion, or miscarriage of justice. The latter phrase is of course capable of wide application according to the particular circumstances of the case. What in my judgment is required is that the Court be shown something from which it can conclude that had there been a properly conducted judicial process it would have been found, or very likely would have been found, that nothing was in fact due to the Claimant. It is clear that in those circumstances the Court can enquire into the
judgment and the judgment debt, even though the debtor himself has previously applied to have the judgment set aside, and even though
that application has been refused and that refusal has been affirmed by the Court of Appeal see Re Fraser [1892] 2QB 633.”
HHJ Pelling KC had before him categoric proof that no money was owed to the Club under the completed terms of the deeds between the parties. There is a 12-year limitation period for breach of a deed, which happened on 30 April 2015. The claims are still well within the statutory limitation period and yet HHJ Pelling, covered up those terms, trying nothing and then certifying the case as ‘no more or less than bound to fail’
It was an outright lie by HHJ Pelling to say that Mr Millinder’s case was ‘no more or less than bound to fail‘.
HHJ Pelling’s affront and attack of the final public policy decisions on the issue of ‘TWM’ by the Court of Appeal
There are two leading judgments on the iimportant public policy issue of ‘TWM’ (meaning no more or less than bound to fail).
At p.15 in R (Grace) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 1091 the Court said this:
“First, no judge will certify an application as TWM unless he is confident after careful consideration that the case truly is bound to fail. He or she will no doubt have in mind the seriousness of the issue and the consequences of his decision in the particular case.”
The Court of Appeal drew the distinction at paragraph 15 of the judgment, between an application within the case and the case itself.
The in the second leading judgment on the public policy issue of ‘TWM’; R (Wasif) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 82 , the Court of Appeal finally determined the public policy rule when any judge is considering a ‘TWM’ certification and at p.19 the Court said this:
“But where the application is certified as TWM, so that the claimant has reached the end of the road (subject to appeal), peculiar care must be taken to ensure that all the arguments raised in the grounds are properly addressed.”
The Court of Appeal finally determined that all the arguments raised in the grounds are properly addressed, but HHJ Pelling KC concealed the contractual facts, he affronted the final judgments going back to the early 18th centaury on the ‘no res judicata rule’, and on the balance of probabilities, he knew as well as the ordinary informed lay observer did, that no money was ever owed to the Club.
LINKS TO EVIDENCE
- The 14.4 formal proof of debt form that the Liquidator, Mr Hannon, formally accepted on 2 February 2017, contrary to Judge Pelling’s lies saying to formal proof was accepted.
- Middlesbrough Football Club’s 31 May 2018 application for an Extended Civil Restraint Order against Mr Millinder – The automatically void application impermissibly trespassing on Mr Millinder’s privilege of absolute witness immunity from suit.
INVITATION TO COMMENT
What is the purpose of a judge who does not judge, and what would the ordinary man down the pub think?
HHJ Pelling KC, the Lady Chief Justice, the Prime Minister’s Anti-Corruption Champion, the Attorney General, Secretary of State for Justice and Serious Fraud Office has been invited to comment on this report.
All comments will be published in the public interest.
