Appeal (Refusal of Interim Injunction)

10 orders made during the Mental Health Crisis Moratorium (28 Dec 2024 to 16 Apr 2025) are void ab initio under Regulation 7(12) DSRR 2020. Each order is void not merely because of when it was made but because of what it contains and what it does. The DDJ Wood order (6 January 2025, MHCM Day 9) fraudulently inserted costs "forthwith GBP 22,528" (enforcement), an unless strike-out (conditional enforcement), and a retrospective extension validating the late Defence. The Master Kaye costs stay (6 February 2025, MHCM Day 40) conditioned the proceedings on payment of void costs (enforcement of debt). Every order that depends on or follows from the 6 February costs stay is also void as a derivative nullity. The LCRO (27 February 2025, MHCM Day 61) restricts the debtor's access to the court (enforcement). The TWM certifications are enforcement acts. The statutory prohibition is mandatory and admits no discretion.

Orders founded on void MHCM orders are themselves void. The DDJ Wood order (Day 9) validated a late Defence; Cohen's summary judgment was founded on that Defence. The entire chain collapses.

Transfer from High Court to County Court on 13 Aug 2024 was made before service was effected (court email confirming service 28 Aug 2024). A court cannot transfer proceedings over which it has not yet acquired jurisdiction. The court itself acknowledged the defect by issuing a second transfer order (Deputy Master Dovar, 3 Sep 2024) and resealing the claim under CPR 17.1(1). If the first transfer was valid, no second transfer would have been necessary. The second transfer is a derivative nullity founded on the void first transfer. The Applicant filed a set-aside application against the first transfer which was never determined. Master Clark also split the single claimant into two separate parties, enabling DDJ Wood to strike out the second claimant through a void sealed order (MHCM Day 9).

Two sealed orders contain terms not pronounced at any hearing. DDJ Wood (06.01.2025, BL-2024-001166 (former County Court ref L10CL352), MHCM Day 9): costs 'reserved' at hearing sealed as 'forthwith 22,528' with strike-out of Mastermind Group Ltd as Second Claimant added (only possible because Master Clark's void transfer had split the single claimant into two parties). DM Glover (18.09.2024, BL-2024-001089): sealed order contains unpronounced directions restricting evidence, interim stay of ALL applications (no application made), bundle ban, and forced name change/claim split under threat of strike-out. 3 reasonable adjustment requests denied at the hearing. Undisclosed material used. Glover order is VOID on 4 independent grounds: (1) CPR 40.12 fabricated terms; (2) CPR 23.1 no application; (3) EA 2010 s.20 RA failure; (4) natural justice breach (Ridge v Baldwin [1964] AC 40). Reclassified from VOIDABLE to VOID 24.03.2026.

The Chancery Division LCRO of 27 Feb 2025, imposed by Master Kaye on BL-2024-001089 alone, was made on Day 61 of the MHCM. It was imposed by the same judge the Claimant had complained about 7 days earlier. It is void ab initio under Reg 7(12) as it constitutes enforcement action during the moratorium. The proceedings were undefended (no defence filed for 540+ days). Any further Chancery Division filing risks escalation to a General Civil Restraint Order (GCRO).

The Chancery Division LCRO on BL-2024-001089 was imposed by Master Kaye 7 days after a formal complaint against her. The same judge who was the subject of the complaint imposed the order on undefended proceedings (no defence filed for 540+ days). The ruling at para 41 expressly cites the complaint as evidence of 'persistence.' A fair-minded observer would conclude there was a real possibility of bias. CROs disproportionately target litigants in person. Any further Chancery Division filing risks a GCRO.

The cluster of 27 Feb 2025 orders was made ex parte without notice or opportunity to be heard. No CPR 3.3(5)(b) notification. No CPR 3.11 warning before CRO. Violates Lord Leggatt's Rule One (Potanina).

No lesser sanctions considered before imposing a 2-year Chancery Division LCRO on BL-2024-001089 alone. Imposed by the same judge the Claimant had complained about 7 days earlier, on undefended proceedings (no defence filed for 540+ days). No costs warning, no extended CRO. The nuclear option applied without proportionality analysis. TWM count arguably incorrect (N460 refused a non-existent application). Any further Chancery Division filing risks escalation to a GCRO.

R1 (Chelsea Harbour) 540+ days in default. No Defence filed. N227 request and N244 application both undetermined. R2/R3 (LRP/Vista) Defence filed 27 days late in a court without jurisdiction (the County Court, following the void transfer of BL-2024-001166), without CPR 3.9 relief or Denton analysis. The court granted substantive relief to defaulting defendants without first determining the anterior Part 12 / Part 23 issue.

Recorder Cohen granted summary judgment on 19 Aug 2025 on a Defence validated by a void DDJ Wood order (MacFoy cascade). The Defence itself contains sworn admissions conceding liability. Three independent Flannery breaches: (1) Cohen asserted "there are other reasons besides exclusive possession that determine a licence from a lease" but never identified what those reasons are. Under Street v Mountford [1985] AC 809 at 826G (Lord Templeman): "If the agreement satisfied all the requirements of a tenancy, then the agreement produced a tenancy and the parties cannot alter the effect of the agreement by insisting that they only created a licence." Exclusive possession + term + rent = tenancy as a matter of law. Cohen's unidentified "other reasons" cannot displace this. (2) Cohen described harassment as "very complicated" but the statutory test is straightforward. Protection from Harassment Act 1997 s.1(1): "A person must not pursue a course of conduct which amounts to harassment of another." Section 7(3): "A 'course of conduct' must involve conduct on at least two occasions." The facts are admitted: Michael gave a police warning on 17 February 2023 (Defence para 10.7.3). The defendants then locked him out on at least two further occasions (27 April and 20 May 2023, Defence para 10.11). That is a course of conduct after actual knowledge. The s.7(3) threshold is plainly met from the Defence alone. Treating this as "complicated" to deny relief is itself a Flannery breach. (3) Cohen admitted insufficient time to read the applicant's evidence and adopted counsel's draft order without modification. Flannery v Halifax [2000] 1 WLR 377 requires the judge to identify the issues vital to the conclusion and explain why they were resolved as they were.

Systematic discrimination arising from disability (s.15), failure to make reasonable adjustments (s.20), discrimination in provision of services (s.29), and breach of Public Sector Equality Duty (s.149) across all proceedings.

12 reasonable adjustment requests across all courts; 0 granted. 100% refusal rate. No evidence of any PD 1A consideration at any hearing. Rolls Building disability framework conceived around physical access only; neurodivergent conditions invisible.

The totality of irregularities (29:0 adverse ratio, MHCM void orders, PD 1A denial, complaint weaponisation, TWM clustering, transcript denial) renders the proceedings fundamentally unfair under Article 6 ECHR.

HHJ Dight CBE (the judge in Lees v Kaye who understood MHCM law) was scheduled but replaced at the last minute by Recorder Cohen KC, who then got the MHCM analysis wrong. No explanation for the swap. SAR filed.

Cohen's N460 refuses permission to appeal. Michael stated at the hearing he was NOT applying for PTA. Cohen imposed a TWM on an application that was never made. The N460 also invented an application to refuse. Wasif/Grace standard violated on multi-limb applications.

Defendants' counsel (Ciara Fairley) had Recorder Cohen's private judicial email before Michael did. Cohen adopted counsel's draft order, refused all LiP corrections, and told the LiP it was 'not appropriate' to correspond with the judge. Article 6 breach.

Cohen stated there were 'other reasons besides exclusive possession' for granting summary judgment but never identified them. A judge who fails to give adequate reasons commits a Flannery breach.

Cohen refused all 7 CPR 40.12 correction requests without engaging with them individually. The sealed order contains 'extemporary' (a non-word) and other errors. The order was sealed with uncorrected mistakes.

HMCTS deleted the Applicant's set-aside application from the CE-File system, then told him any High Court filings would be struck out. Created a procedural impossibility: could not challenge the transfer in either court.

At least 5 formal EX107 transcript applications filed across multiple courts, plus further informal requests as reasonable adjustments. Not a single full transcript provided in over 200 days. Rolls Building ignored applications. County Court returned forms addressed to 'Mr Darius'. Hearings requiring transcripts: 18 Sep 2024 (DM Glover), 25 Sep 2024 (ICC Judge Greenwood, informal RA), 20 Dec 2024 (DDJ Wood), 4 Dec 2024 (ICC Judge Prentis, informal RA), 6 Feb 2025 (Master Kaye), 19 Aug 2025 (Recorder Cohen). Without transcripts, appeals cannot proceed.

Arrest warrant and PE proceedings conducted under ss.290 and 364 IA 1986 (bankruptcy provisions). The company is in compulsory liquidation, not bankruptcy. The applicable provisions are ss.133 and 134 IA 1986. This is jurisdictional, not a typo.

Public examination transferred to County Court at Central London. Section 117(2A) IA 1986 and Article 6C HCCJ Order 1991 provide that winding-up proceedings 'shall be commenced and proceeded with only in the High Court.'

Universal Credit closed as a consequence of a winding-up order that cascaded from void proceedings. Disability-related inability to comply with requirements imposed by void orders.

HMRC pursued winding-up petition without conducting a reasonable adjustment assessment for a disabled taxpayer. Mrs Huntley refused engagement on 22 Feb 2024.

28 consecutive adverse decisions (21 judicial + 7 institutional) against a disabled LiP with defendants in default. Probability of occurring by chance: 1 in 536,870,912. No rational decision-making process could produce this outcome.

16 substantive emails sent to multiple court addresses across all proceedings. Not a single substantive response. Emails included MHCM notification, default judgment requests, RA requests, and complaints.

The Official Receiver abandoned £9.2M in claims (£4.9M LRP + £1.95M Chelsea + £2.35M personal) without investigation. Demands documents from the Applicant while simultaneously withholding them. Impossibilium nulla obligatio est.

Steven Ross (Harold Benjamin LLP) made 4 false statements across 2 courts: 3 in witness statements, 1 in pleading ('changing the locks' vs WhatsApp + transcript showing 'padlocked'). Plus 1,336-page misleading bundle and enforcement during MHCM. No SRA investigation.

17 orders granted to defendants or against the Applicant without any CPR 23.1 application notice being filed. Made on court's own initiative or at oral request, without service, and in several instances during MHCM.

HHJ Dight CBE (the Lees v Kaye MHCM judge) was scheduled for the 19 Aug 2025 hearing. He was swapped for Recorder Cohen at the last minute with no explanation. Cohen then got the MHCM analysis wrong. SAR filed to investigate.

County Court returned EX107 transcript applications addressed to 'Mr Darius' (the Applicant's surname is Eastwood). a County Court clerk, County Court clerk, 18 Sep 2025. Form rejected because two production companies were selected instead of one.

Whether counsel participated in ex parte applications during MHCM period. Core Duties 1, 3, 5 engaged. Rules rC3, rC4. Conditional/investigatory pending SAR results.

Deprivation of liberty pursuant to an arrest warrant founded on void orders. Article 5(1) ECHR requires lawful authority. A void order provides no lawful authority. Article 5(5) entitles compensation.

Combined effect: GBP 34,528 costs barrier (R (UNISON) v Lord Chancellor), Chancery Division LCRO (BL-2024-001089 only, imposed by the same judge complained about 7 days earlier on undefended proceedings) blocking applications, default judgment suppressed 540+ days, transcripts withheld preventing appeals. Closed loop: courts refuse adjustments, deny transcripts, maintain void orders.

The Applicant was treated differently because of his disability. Recorder Cohen: 'had you had counsel maybe you would have won.' Rather than providing adjustments to level the playing field, the court punished the disability.

Loss of business, office, chattels, IP, and income through enforcement of void orders. Article 1, Protocol 1 ECHR protects peaceful enjoyment of possessions.

12 formal RA requests across all courts. Not a single one granted. Rolls Building disability framework conceived for physical disabilities. Neurodivergent conditions do not exist in their documentation. No PD 1A reference anywhere.

Section 149 EA 2010 imposes a duty to have due regard. No evidence of any PSED consideration at any hearing, in any order, or in any correspondence. The duty is proactive, not reactive.

Formal complaint filed 20 Feb 2025 against Master Kaye documenting disability discrimination. JCIO has not investigated in 13+ months. PSED requires due regard to eliminating discrimination. Ignoring complaints about discrimination is itself a PSED failure.

The 06.02.2025 hearing was listed as 'A v B' on the public cause list without any CPR 39.2 order authorising anonymity. No reason given. No application made. Open justice is a constitutional principle. This unexplained departure requires explanation.

Supports both bias (appeal) and irrationality (JR). 28 consecutive adverse outcomes. P < 1 in 536,870,912.

Supports both procedural unfairness (appeal) and procedural impropriety (JR).

Supports both Article 6 fair hearing (appeal) and procedural impropriety (JR).

Supports both CPR 40.12 breach (appeal) and illegality (JR).

Supports both SJ was wrong (appeal) and irrationality (JR).

In neither BL-2024-001089 nor BL-2024-001166 was disclosure ever discussed, ordered, or conducted. Document-dependent issues (service validity, notices, lease/licence status, lockout records, disposal records) were determined summarily without disclosure. This is a compelling reason under CPR 24.2(b) why the claims should not have been disposed of before proper disclosure case management. The record was incomplete and asymmetric.

In BL-2024-001089, R1 applied for a stay of proceedings, not a strike-out for abuse of process under CPR 3.4(2)(b). A stay presupposes the proceedings have life. If Kelly had determined everything, the proper course was strike-out. The defendant's choice of remedy is an implicit admission Kelly was interim. Master Kaye independently confirmed this at 6 February 2025.

Chelsea Harbour sold property belonging to Michael personally and Mastermind Group Ltd for GBP 1,100 to Barrington Marketing Limited. Mastermind Promotion Ltd held the lease but is dormant with zero property rights. No itemised list provided. Sale after cease and desist letter. Strict liability conversion: Kuwait Airways v Iraqi Airways [2002] 2 AC 883. Only quantum remains. Causes of action assigned to Michael in April 2024 (pre-liquidation). Steven Ross WS admits disposal.

The CPR 52.30 application seeks to reopen the PTA refusal against Kelly's interim injunction decision. It does not seek to relitigate the substantive Chancery claims. Kelly para 50: 'It remains open to the claimants to bring a substantive claim.' Kelly para 31: 'Not for the court today to make findings of fact.' Dove treated interim as final. CPR 52.5 does not bar CPR 52.30 (separate jurisdiction). R2/R3 were not even parties to the Kelly hearing.

Revenue schedule from sole trader (2014) to peak (2022). Shows 1,446% growth.

IP materials, client databases, and business assets evidence.

Investor evidence: £600,000 commitment, £300,000 paid. Withdrawn after IP sold to competitor.

Mastermind Promotion Ltd pitch deck and business valuation showing 1,446% growth trajectory.

Discounted cash flow valuation. WACC 12%, EBITDA margin 30%, NPV £11.82M.

Five-year business forecast projections based on historic growth trend.

Compiled evidence of procedural failures across courts.

Dr James Woolley psychiatric report confirming ADHD and ASD. HMCTS RA Reference 67862925.

Transcript of hearing before HHJ Kelly. Only partial transcript received. 200+ days withheld.

Official Mental Health Crisis Moratorium certificate covering 28 December 2024 to 16 April 2025.

Supporting evidence document from court filing.

Supporting evidence document from court filing.

SAR sent to HMCTS for all records relating to the case.

SAR sent to the Insolvency Service under UK GDPR Art 15 for all personal data relating to CR-2024-00

Crisis team letter confirming ASD diagnosis and ongoing mental health crisis.

Recorder Cohen KC completed N460 of his own initiative. Michael explicitly stated at hearing he was

SAR filed via UC journal under UK GDPR Art 15 for all personal data from entire claim period (Feb 20