Email timestamps prove. But counsel-judge comms are common.
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.
Article 6 ECHR; Niderost-Huber v Switzerland (1997) 25 EHRR 709
What the opponent will argue, and why they are wrong.
Counsel routinely communicates with judges about draft orders.
Fairley emailed Cohen at 11:34 on 20 Aug BEFORE Michael had the address. Cohen CC'd Michael but then told him 'not appropriate to correspond'. The judge accepted counsel's draft verbatim while refusing all LiP corrections. Niderost-Huber v Switzerland: equality of arms requires both parties have equal access.
The applicant was CC'd on all communications and had the same information.
Three explanations, all damaging. (1) Cohen gave counsel his private email before the hearing (improper relationship). (2) Counsel already knew Cohen's email from prior dealings (same concern). (3) Cohen actively provided it to counsel but not the LiP (direct inequality). In each scenario, the LiP was disadvantaged. The draft order was counsel's draft adopted verbatim.
Fairley emailed Cohen at 11:34 on 20 Aug 2025. Before the LiP had the address. Timestamp is objective.
Official costs statement. Bowden-Brown GBP 590/hr. Fairley brief GBP 11,000.
Fallback: SAR results may strengthen this ground. Regardless, Cohen SJ fails on multiple independent grounds.
Independence: Partially dependent on other grounds succeeding.
| Date | Judge | Type | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 19 August 2025 | Recorder Cohen KC | Summary Judgment Order | VOID |
| 19 August 2025 | Recorder Cohen KC | N460 Permission Refusal / TWM on PTA | VOID |