M. D. Eastwood
/
Overview & Briefing 4
Judicial Briefing Guide for Court How the Cases Connect The Story
Orders Sought 4
Relief Sought 33 Quantum (£8.2M+ pleaded) Why One Judge Must Hear All Settlement Exposure The Costs Trap
Void Ab Initio 29:0
29 Adverse : 0 Favourable 1 in 537M 21 Void Orders (All Void) MHCM Calendar Defence Admissions Defence Contradictions Equality of Arms Filing Pattern (0/12 RA) Staff Impact (6 Resignations) Gaslighting 13
No Time Bar Applies 9 Grounds
Grounds of Voidness 23
CA-2024-001353 · s.31A SCA 1981
Appeal Overview 23 Grounds of Voidness Argument Map KB Hearing (7 June) Waiver/Estoppel
Judicial Review 12
7 bodies · 34 ECHR · permission sought
JR Targets 7 ECHR Violations 34 Institutional Failures Solicitor Misconduct Transcript Obstruction 0/12 Adjustments Granted Subject Access Requests SAR Tracker 3 overdue Pre-Action Letters Constitutional DWP Judicial Review Wheelchair Ramp
The 6 Cases 6
Chelsea Harbour Ltd (R1) Lower Richmond Properties Ltd & Vista (London) Ltd (R2, R3) Personal Damages Insolvency KB Injunction Defendants
Evidence & Documents 11
103 exhibits · 160 authorities · 1395 events
Evidence Hub Exhibits 103 Gallery Chronology 1395 Authorities 160 Key Quotes Revenue & DCF Costs Analysis OR Response + 15 Enclosures Applications All Documents
Reference & Tools 14
Ask the Case Search / Master Timeline Order Timeline CPR Heatmap CPR Dictionary Citation Index Glossary Evidence Trails Document Timeline Evidence Matrix Evidence Audit Argument Index Data Health Open Justice Assurance and Governance Health Report
🌱 Built with Eden Legal AI
✓ visited · ? shortcuts clear
Legal Proceedings
https://www.michaeldariuseastwood.com/legal
In the Court of Appeal
(Civil Division)
CA-2024-001353
Between
Michael Darius Eastwood
(Representing As Mastermind Promotion Ltd and Mastermind Group Ltd)
Claimant / Appellant / Applicant (Litigant in Person)
and
Chelsea Harbour Ltd, Lower Richmond Properties Ltd
and Vista (London) Ltd
Defendants / Respondents

Public Evidence Portal

Supplementary navigational aid to the formal court bundle

Guide for the Court · Open Justice Disclaimer

This site is published under the open justice principle. All court proceedings referenced here are matters of public record. Third-party personal data has been redacted in accordance with GDPR. Public availability here does not itself prove that a document has been filed, served, or sent. Read the full disclaimer.
589+
Chelsea (R1) days in default
No defence filed. Ever.
549+
LRP/Vista (R2/R3) days in default
Defence void. Wrong court, 27 days late, no CPR 3.9.
29:0
Adverse decisions
1 in 537 million by chance.
29:0Decision Ratio
£8.2M+Combined Quantum (pleaded)
21Void Orders
10Sworn Admissions
54+CPR Violations
34ECHR Violations
0/12RA Requests Granted
7Bodies Breached Duties
1,180+Days in Default (Combined)
£34,528Costs During MHCM
0/8Full Transcripts
1 in 537MChance This Is Fair
10 Sworn Admissions of Liability (Irrevocable under CPR 14.1(5))

LRP/Vista Defence (BL-2024-001166 (former County Court ref L10CL352), 24.10.2024):

  1. §10.4: Mid-month payment arrangement admitted Arrears miscalculated
  2. §10.5.2: “Lockouts were effected without prior notice” PHA 1997
  3. §10.7.2: Lockout on 18 Jan 2023 admitted After police warning
  4. §10.11: Two further lockouts 27 Apr and 20 May 2023 Mens Rea established
  5. §17.4: “It is admitted that adjustments were not made for him” EA 2010 s.20
  6. §20.3: “Could have caused some business disruption” Causation

Chelsea Harbour (Steven Ross WS, KB-2024-001508, 04.06.2024):

  1. §10: “Re-entered the Premises by changing the locks” FALSE: WhatsApp says padlocked
  2. §11: “Chattels sold to the new occupant for £1,100” Conversion
  3. §11: “These funds are being held by the Defendant” Admits holding proceeds
  4. §12: Re-let to Barrington Marketing (IP sold to competitor) Aggravated conversion

R1 (Chelsea Harbour): No defence filed. 540+ days in default. Steven Ross made 4 false statements under oath across two courts.

Active Cases

BL-2024-001089
N5A Relief from Forfeiture
High Court (Chancery Division)
v. Chelsea Harbour Ltd (R1)
Damages to be assessed by the court
STAYED (VOID MHCM ORDERS)
BL-2024-001166
Part 7 Damages (Harassment / Conversion)
County Court at Central London
v. Lower Richmond Properties Ltd (R2), Vista (London) Ltd (R3)
£4,907,000 (subject to court assessment)
SUMMARY JUDGMENT (VOID DERIVATIVE)
BL-2025-000147
Part 7 Personal Damages
High Court (Chancery Division)
v. Chelsea Harbour Ltd (R1)
£3,325,000 (provisional, subject to court assessment)
STAYED (PRE-SERVICE VOID)
CA-2024-001353
Appeal (Refusal of Interim Injunction)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
v. Chelsea Harbour Ltd
PENDING / STAYED
CR-2024-000527
Winding Up Petition
Insolvency & Companies Court (High Court)
v. Mastermind Group Ltd (In Liquidation)
WOUND UP (25.09.2024)
KB-2024-001508
Part 8 Injunction Application
King's Bench Division
v. Chelsea Harbour Ltd
CONCLUDED (INTERIM RELIEF REFUSED)

Navigate

Chronology
1395 events
Authorities
97 citations
Evidence Matrix
Grounds vs Exhibits
Documents
Filed legal documents
Statistics
29:0 bias analysis
Evidence Gallery
35 exhibits + 28 figures
Case Map
How all 6 cases connect
Defendants
Admissions & liability
MHCM Calendar
110-day void period
Ask the Case
Constitutional AI analysis
Outcome Prediction
Ground-by-ground strength
Argument Map
19 grounds of voidness, 21 JR grounds, 42 grounds total
Authority Explorer
Interactive case law
Void Chain
MacFoy cascade
Master Timeline
116 events, 33 months
Constitutional
Rule of law deficit
Exhibit Register
82 NEXIS exhibits
Defence Analysis
Contradictions exposed
Transcripts
8 applications, 0 provided

Mathematical Proof

29 decisions were made across 6 courts and 10+ judges over 2 years. Every single one was adverse to the Claimant. Zero were favourable. The probability of this occurring by chance in a fair system is:

0.529 = 1 / 229 = 1 / 536,870,912

This is verifiable with any calculator. The underlying decisions are public court records listed in the statistical analysis with dates, case numbers, and sealed order references.

Per Essop v Home Office [2017] UKSC 27, statistical disparity of this magnitude speaks for itself. The Claimant does not need to explain why the pattern exists. The pattern itself is the evidence.

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated on this website are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Michael Darius Eastwood

Litigant in Person

ADHD + ASD (Equality Act 2010 s.6) | HMCTS RA Ref: 67862925

London, United Kingdom

© 2026 Michael Darius Eastwood. Published under the open justice principle.

Legal Disclaimer · All Cases

Evidence
Open in full page