29:0 is powerful but cumulative arguments harder to prove individually.
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.
Article 6 ECHR; Serafin v Malkiewicz [2020] UKSC 23
What the opponent will argue, and why they are wrong.
Individual errors do not amount to systemic unfairness.
29:0 adverse ratio. Probability < 1 in 536,870,912. This is not 'individual errors'. It is a PATTERN. Serafin v Malkiewicz [2020] UKSC 23: cumulative effect of procedural irregularities can render proceedings fundamentally unfair even where no single error would suffice alone.
The applicant had access to the court system and could have instructed lawyers.
Costs barrier of GBP 34,528 in void orders. Chancery Division LCRO (BL-2024-001089 only, imposed by the same judge complained about 7 days earlier on undefended proceedings) blocks applications. No legal aid available. R (UNISON): access to justice is constitutional right. Barton v Wright Hassall: procedural requirements must be tempered for LiPs. Cohen's own remark ('had you had counsel') proves the inequality. CROs disproportionately target litigants in person.
Each of the 28 decisions is individually documented with date, judge, and order reference.
Fallback: Each component of the cumulative unfairness (MHCM, bias, RA denial, TWM clustering) is an independent ground.
Independence: Partially dependent on other grounds succeeding.