A side-by-side comparison of what the defendants received without making applications versus what the claimant received despite making applications.
The Civil Procedure Rules exist to ensure that all parties are treated equally before the court. CPR 1.1(2)(a) requires the court to ensure that the parties are on an equal footing. What follows is a factual comparison of how the rules were applied to each side in these proceedings.
Every item below was granted by the court without a formal application by the defendants.
| # | What Was Received | Application Filed | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
Only 1 sealed application served on the Applicant across ALL proceedings
Between them, Chelsea Harbour Ltd, Lower Richmond Properties Ltd, and Vista (London) Ltd filed only ONE sealed application notice that was served on the Applicant across all 6 proceedings. One application. Yet they obtained 28 favourable procedural outcomes. The entire system operated in their favour without them needing to ask.
CPR 23.1 (applications must be made by application notice)
|
No application | Granted |
| 2 |
Defence validated despite being 27 days late (no CPR 3.9 relief sought)
The LRP/Vista Defence was filed 27 days after the CPR 15.4 deadline. No application for relief from sanctions under CPR 3.9. No application for extension of time. DDJ Wood retrospectively validated it in a void order (MHCM Day 9). Denton v TH White [2014] EWCA Civ 906 requires a formal application. None was made.
CPR 3.9, CPR 15.4, Denton
|
No application | Granted |
| 3 |
540+ days in default with no consequence (Chelsea)
Chelsea Harbour Ltd has filed no Acknowledgment of Service and no Defence for over 540 days. No unless order was made against them. No strike-out of their position. No adverse inference drawn. The party in default controls the litigation through procedural tactics while the party who filed the claim is penalised.
CPR 10.3, CPR 15.2, CPR 12.3
|
No application | Granted |
| 4 |
Stay of proceedings imposed without defendant application
Proceedings stayed by Master Kaye on MHCM Day 40 without any application from Chelsea Harbour. The stay froze the claim, prevented default judgment, and created an automatic strike-out deadline (6 June 2025) unless £10,000 costs were paid. The beneficiary of the stay was the defaulting defendant.
CPR 3.1(2)(f)
|
No application | Granted |
| 5 |
LCRO imposed without defendant application (7 days after complaint)
Master Kaye imposed a 2-year LCRO on BL-2024-001089 without any application from Chelsea Harbour (Master Kaye Ruling para 141 confirms this). Imposed 7 days after a formal complaint against her. No CPR 3.11 warning. No lesser sanction considered. Master Kaye herself confirmed no defendant applied for it.
CPR 3.11, PD 3C
|
No application | Granted |
| 6 |
Costs of £34,528 imposed without formal costs applications
DDJ Wood: £22,528 "forthwith" (costs were reserved at hearing, sealed as forthwith). Master Kaye: £12,000 indemnity. Neither defendant applied for costs. Total: £34,528 against a disabled LiP on UC with zero income, while the defendants remained in default.
CPR 44.2
|
No application | Granted |
| 7 |
TWM certificates imposed on applications never made
Master Kaye completed N460 refusing PTA and certifying TWM on Day 61. The Applicant had not applied for PTA. Cohen imposed TWM on a PTA the Applicant expressly stated he was not making. The TWMs were then used to justify the LCRO. Applications that were never made were refused and certified as hopeless.
CPR 3.4(6), PD 3C
|
No application | Granted |
| 8 |
Summary judgment on a void Defence (Cohen)
Recorder Cohen KC granted summary judgment to the defendants on 19 August 2025 on a Defence that was validated by a void DDJ Wood order (MacFoy cascade). The Defence itself contains sworn admissions of liability. The judge replaced was HHJ Dight CBE (the Lees v Kaye MHCM expert). No explanation for the swap.
CPR Part 24
|
No application | Granted |
| 9 |
Transfer to County Court without consultation (pre-service)
Master Clark transferred BL-2024-001166 from the High Court to the County Court on 13 August 2024 before the claim was served (service confirmed 28 August). Also split the single claimant into two parties. The Applicant was not consulted. The transfer is void (Fourie v Le Roux: no jurisdiction pre-service).
CPR 30.3, Fourie v Le Roux
|
No application | Granted |
| 10 |
Private email access to judge (counsel only)
Ciara Fairley (Falcon Chambers, instructed by Shoosmiths for R2/R3) had Recorder Cohen KC's personal judicial email and used it to send a draft order the morning after the hearing. Cohen adopted counsel's draft. When the Applicant submitted 7 neutral CPR 40.12 corrections, all were refused. Cohen then said it was "not appropriate" for the Applicant to correspond further.
Article 6 ECHR, CPR 40.12
|
No application | Granted |
| 11 |
Arrest warrant obtained without notice or service
DJ Mauger issued an arrest warrant on 19 November 2025 without CPR 23.9(3) set-aside notice. Not served on the Applicant. Wrong statutory provisions (bankruptcy not company). Wrong court (County Court not High Court). The Applicant faces arrest for an order founded on a void winding-up.
CPR 23.9(3), Article 5 ECHR
|
No application | Granted |
| 12 |
Chattels sold for £1,100 without valuation
Chelsea Harbour sold the entire contents of the Applicant's music business office (equipment, IP, client databases, business records) to the new occupant for £1,100. No independent valuation. No court order. Ross admits this under oath (para 11). The IP alone was worth over £1M (Steinhuber investment: £305K paid).
Kuwait Airways v Iraqi Airways [2002] UKHL 19
|
No application | Granted |
Every item below was refused or ignored despite formal applications being filed by the Claimant.
| # | What Was Requested | Applications Filed | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
Default judgment refused
Despite CPR 12.3 providing a mandatory entitlement to default judgment where no defence is filed within the prescribed time, the Claimant's application was refused. The defendants were in default for over 540 days. CPR 12.3(1) uses the word "must". The court treated a mandatory provision as discretionary.
CPR 12.3(1)
|
Multiple | Refused / Ignored |
| 2 |
Set-aside application deleted from CE-File
An application to set aside an order was filed via the CE-File electronic filing system. The application was deleted from the system. No notification was sent. No reason was given. The Claimant discovered the deletion only when checking the file.
CPR 23
|
1 (deleted) | Refused / Ignored |
| 3 |
Transcript applications ignored
8 transcript applications were filed across the litigation. Zero full transcripts were ever provided. Transcripts are essential for identifying judicial errors and preparing grounds for declaration of voidness. Without them, the Claimant cannot verify what was said in hearings.
CPR 39.9
|
8 filed, 0 provided | Refused / Ignored |
| 4 |
Reasonable adjustment requests ignored
12 reasonable adjustment requests were filed under the Equality Act 2010 s.20. Zero adjustments were ever implemented. HMCTS issued Reference 67862925 but took no action. The duty to make adjustments is anticipatory and non-delegable.
EA 2010 s.20, PD 1A
|
12 filed, 0 granted | Refused / Ignored |
| 5 |
Unsealed application penalised with 10,000 pounds costs
The Claimant filed an application that was unsealed. The court penalised this with a costs order of 10,000 pounds. The defendants filed unsealed applications that were accepted and determined in their favour. The same procedural deficiency produced opposite outcomes depending on which party committed it.
CPR 23
|
1 | Refused / Ignored |
| 6 |
N227 rejected
The Claimant filed Form N227 (requesting a hearing date). The court rejected it with the statement: "You do not appear to be a party to this claim." The Claimant is the party who issued the claim. His name is on the claim form.
CPR 23, CPR 26
|
1 | Refused / Ignored |
| 7 |
Applications threatened with "struck off"
A court clerk threatened to have the Claimant's applications "struck off". Applications are not "struck off". They are refused, dismissed, or struck out. The threat used incorrect terminology and was designed to discourage further applications by a litigant who was exercising his procedural rights.
CPR 3.4, CPR 23
|
Multiple | Refused / Ignored |
The defendants received 12 procedural advantages without filing a single application. The Claimant filed dozens of applications and received 7 refusals or instances of being ignored.
The same rules were applied differently depending on which party invoked them. The defendants' non-compliance was accommodated. The Claimant's compliance was penalised. The defendants' late filings were accepted. The Claimant's timely filings were rejected.
CPR 1.1 requires the court to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost. This includes ensuring the parties are on an equal footing (CPR 1.1(2)(a)) and ensuring compliance with rules, practice directions, and orders (CPR 1.1(2)(f)). The record above shows that the court enforced compliance against one party while waiving it for the other.
The Claimant is a litigant in person with ADHD and ASD, protected under the Equality Act 2010 s.6. The duty to ensure equal treatment is not merely procedural. It is a constitutional obligation. Article 6 ECHR guarantees equality of arms. Article 14 ECHR prohibits discrimination in the enjoyment of Convention rights. What is documented above is not a series of unfortunate administrative errors. It is a pattern.
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