One dispute. Six cases. Three courts. Every case flows from the same root: LRP/Vista harassment of a disabled tenant, which destroyed his business and triggered the Chelsea forfeiture.
LRP/Vista harassment of a disabled tenant. 6 lockouts (admitted under oath). No reasonable adjustments made (admitted). Business destroyed. Chelsea Harbour forfeiture was a consequence, not the origin.
Lower Richmond Properties Ltd and Vista (London) Ltd harassed a disabled tenant. 6 lockouts (admitted under oath). No reasonable adjustments made (admitted). Business destroyed. Michael filed BL-2024-001166 in the Chancery Division. No defence was filed in the correct court. Master Clark transferred the case to County Court before it was even served (void under Fourie v Le Roux [2007] UKHL 1). On transfer, the court split his party name into two, enabling a fabricated strike-out.
Chelsea Harbour Ltd then unlawfully forfeited Mastermind Promotion Ltd's lease at Unit 205 without a s.146 notice (admitted under oath by Steven Ross). Chelsea Harbour Ltd sold Mastermind Group Ltd's and Michael Darius Eastwood's property. Strict liability. The leaseholder owned zero property within the office. Chelsea Harbour Ltd had no right to sell it. There was no valid debt. Chelsea Harbour Ltd had written off the arrears themselves. Michael filed for relief from forfeiture (BL-2024-001089). No defence was filed. 540+ days in default.
Mastermind Group Ltd was then wound up on a debt caused by the harassment and forfeiture. Mastermind Group Ltd was not a party to the Chelsea Harbour lease. The case was transferred out of the Chancery Division following a formal complaint alleging systematic bias against litigants in person and neurodivergent individuals across the Division as a whole.
7 days after that formal complaint, a Limited Civil Restraint Order was imposed on Michael Darius Eastwood personally. Not on the companies. On the individual who had just complained. This LCRO was made during a Mental Health Crisis Moratorium, which makes it void ab initio under Reg 7(12) DSRR 2020. The LCRO also makes the stay due to costs void, because the LCRO itself is void. A non-High Court claim number was issued for what should have been High Court corporate insolvency proceedings. The wrong court then issued an arrest warrant. On the court announcements board, it was listed as bankruptcy proceedings. This is not bankruptcy. It is corporate insolvency. 21 void orders. Zero with adequate reasons. 29 decisions against the Claimant. Zero in his favour. The probability of this occurring by chance is 1 in 268 million.