Defence Contradictions

The Defendants filed a Defence on 24 October 2024 (27 days late, no CPR 3.9 relief) and a Skeleton Argument on 18 December 2024. Both were prepared by the same legal team: Stephanie Tozer KC (Defence), Jamie Sutherland (Skeleton). The Defence was signed under Statement of Truth by Zulfikar Virani, director of both Defendant companies. The Defence and Skeleton Argument contradict each other. They also contain fatal admissions that satisfy the legal tests for liability. Steven Ross of Harold Benjamin LLP made 3 false statements under oath in witness statements connected to these proceedings.

2 Contradictions

3 Ross False Statements

4 Fatal Admissions

5 Critical / Nuclear

Contradictions LRP/VistaDefence vs Skeleton Argument. Same legal team. Same signatory. Different stories.

CONTRA-001

ADHD Knowledge Contradiction

CRITICAL

Defence (para 17.1)

'It is denied that the Claimant ever informed the Defendants that he has ADHD, sent them any medical documentation and/or that he ever requested any adjustments from them as a result.'

Defence of R2/R3, signed 24 October 2024 under Statement of Truth

Skeleton Argument (para 30(e))

'insofar as the Claimant requires reasonable adjustments for his ADHD, these can be as easily provided in the CCCL as in the High Court.'

Skeleton Argument of Stephanie Tozer KC (Defence), Jamie Sutherland (Skeleton), 18 December 2024

Why this matters Cannot simultaneously deny knowledge of ADHD (Defence 17.1) and acknowledge he needs adjustments for it (Skeleton 30(e)). One statement is false.

CONTRA-002

Late Defence Validity

CRITICAL

Skeleton Argument (para 26(c)-(d))

'the Claimant could no longer request or obtain default judgment, as a Defence has now been filed... the Defendant could rely on the Defence in these proceedings going forward, even without an extension of time from the Court.'

Skeleton Argument of Stephanie Tozer KC (Defence), Jamie Sutherland (Skeleton), 18 December 2024

Why this matters Wrong in law. Per Billington v Davies [2018] EWHC 1919 (Ch) at [17], a late defence is a nullity absent express CPR 3.9 relief. The defence was filed 27 days late. No CPR 3.9 application was made. No Denton analysis recorded.

Steven Ross: False Statements ChelseaInjunctionSteven Ross of Harold Benjamin LLP. Statements under oath contradicted by the Defendants' own evidence.

Steven Ross is a solicitor at Harold Benjamin LLP. He filed witness statements in both the King's Bench and Chancery proceedings. The statements below were made under Statement of Truth. Each is contradicted by evidence from the Defendants' own records or the court's own transcript.

ROSS-FALSE-001

Locks vs Padlock: False Statement Maintained Across Two Courts

NUCLEAR

Ross stated under oath

'On 11 December 2023 the Defendant re-entered the Premises by changing the locks.'

Witness Statement (KB-2024-001508), para 10 (04.06.2024)

'On 11 December 2023 the Defendant re-entered the Premises by changing the locks.'

Witness Statement (BL-2024-001089), para 8 (07.08.2024)

Contradicted by

'We padlocked but did not change the lock.'

WhatsApp from Silvia (Chelsea Harbour) (19.12.2023)

Contradicted by

'Premises were padlocked.'

HHJ Kelly Transcript (KB-2024-001508) (07.06.2024), para 42

Two witness statements under Statement of Truth in two different courts contain the identical false claim. Both contradicted by the defendant's own employee (contemporaneous WhatsApp) and the court's own transcript. Ross knew by 7 August 2024 that the transcript said 'padlocked' yet repeated 'changing the locks'. This is a deliberate false statement maintained across proceedings.

ROSS-FALSE-002

HHJ Kelly Misquotation: 'No Serious Issue' vs 'Open to Bring Claim'

CRITICAL

Ross stated under oath

'HHJ Kelly held there was no serious issue to be tried and the dismissal of the application was the end of the proceedings.'

Witness Statement (BL-2024-001089), para 15 (07.08.2024)

Contradicted by

'It remains open to the claimants to bring a substantive claim.'

HHJ Kelly Transcript (KB-2024-001508), para 50

Ross misrepresents HHJ Kelly's ruling. The transcript says the opposite of what Ross claims. Kelly explicitly preserved the right to bring a substantive claim. Ross's statement is designed to persuade the Chancery Master that the claim has already been adjudicated. It has not.

ROSS-FALSE-003

Chattels Disposal: Sold for 1,100 While Worth 600K+

CRITICAL

Ross stated under oath

'The chattels were not removed, and they have accordingly been sold to the new occupant for £1,100.'

Witness Statement (KB-2024-001508), para 11 (04.06.2024)

Admits conversion. IP, equipment, stock, client materials, and business assets worth £600,000+ sold for £1,100 to new occupant. Strict liability under Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977. Only quantum in issue.

Locks Comparison ChelseaInjunctionThe same event described differently across 4 sources. Two are under oath. Two are contemporaneous.

On 11 December 2023, Chelsea Harbour re-entered Michael's premises. Steven Ross stated in two witness statements, in two different courts, that the Defendant 're-entered the Premises by changing the locks'. The Defendant's own employee said they 'padlocked but did not change the lock'. The court's own transcript says the premises 'were padlocked'. Ross knew the transcript said 'padlocked' by 7 August 2024, yet repeated the 'changing the locks' claim in the second witness statement filed that same month.

Source	Date	What Was Said	Claim	Verdict
Ross WS (KB-2024-001508), para 10	04.06.2024	'On 11 December 2023 the Defendant re-entered the Premises by changing the locks.'	Locks changed	FALSE
Ross WS (BL-2024-001089), para 8	07.08.2024	'On 11 December 2023 the Defendant re-entered the Premises by changing the locks.'	Locks changed	FALSE
WhatsApp from Silvia (Chelsea Harbour)	19.12.2023	'We padlocked but did not change the lock.'	Padlocked only	TRUE
HHJ Kelly Transcript (KB-2024-001508), para 42	07.06.2024	'Premises were padlocked.'	Padlocked only	TRUE

Fatal Admissions LRP/VistaAdmissions under Statement of Truth that satisfy the legal tests for liability

The Defence contains explicit admissions that, taken together, satisfy the complete legal tests for harassment, causation, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and unlawful lockout. These admissions are irrevocable under CPR 14.1(5) without court permission. No application to withdraw any admission has been made.

ADMIT-HARASS Defence paras 4.1, 10.5.2, 10.7.3, 10.11

Defence 4.1 admits PHA 1997 duty exists. Defence 10.5.2 admits 6 lockouts without prior notice. Defence 10.7.3 admits Claimant warned of police for criminal harassment on 17 Feb 2023. Defence 10.11 admits 2 further lockouts on 27 Apr and 20 May 2023 AFTER the warning. This satisfies the complete legal test for harassment: course of conduct (2+ occasions), causing alarm/distress, with knowledge it amounts to harassment. Majrowski v Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Trust [2006] UKHL 34

ADMIT-CAUSATION Defence para 20.3

'It is admitted that the lockouts and/or the fee increase could have caused some business disruption to Mastermind.'

Once causation is admitted, quantum is the only remaining issue. The Defence cannot retract this admission without court permission (CPR 14.1(5)).

ADMIT-ADJUSTMENTS Defence para 17.4

'It is admitted that adjustments were not made for him.'

Explicit admission of EA 2010 s.20 breach under Statement of Truth. Strict liability for failure to make reasonable adjustments.

ADMIT-NO-NOTICE Defence para 10.5.2

'It is admitted that this (and subsequent lockouts) were effected without prior notice.'

No contractual right to lock out without notice exists. Even if clause 9.3 permitted lockouts, no clause permitted them without notice.

Signed Under Statement of Truth

Every contradiction, every admission, and every false statement identified on this page was made in documents signed under a Statement of Truth. The Defence was signed by Zulfikar Virani, Director of both Defendant companies. Proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against a person who makes a false statement in a document verified by a Statement of Truth (CPR 22.1, CPR 32.14).

Signed: Zulfikar Virani | Director | 24 October 2024

As director of BOTH defendants, these are his personal admissions under oath. Irrevocable under CPR 14.1(5) without court permission. No application to withdraw has been made.

Michael Darius Eastwood

Litigant in Person | ADHD + ASD (EA 2010 s.6) | RA Ref: 67862925

Data source: defence_contradictions.json