M. D. Eastwood
/
Overview & Briefing 4
Judicial Briefing Guide for Court How the Cases Connect The Story
Orders Sought 4
Relief Sought 33 Quantum (£8.2M+ pleaded) Why One Judge Must Hear All Settlement Exposure The Costs Trap
Void Ab Initio 29:0
29 Adverse : 0 Favourable 1 in 537M 21 Void Orders (All Void) MHCM Calendar Defence Admissions Defence Contradictions Equality of Arms Filing Pattern (0/12 RA) Staff Impact (6 Resignations) Gaslighting 13
No Time Bar Applies 9 Grounds
Grounds of Voidness 23
CA-2024-001353 · s.31A SCA 1981
Appeal Overview 23 Grounds of Voidness Argument Map KB Hearing (7 June) Waiver/Estoppel
Judicial Review 12
7 bodies · 34 ECHR · permission sought
JR Targets 7 ECHR Violations 34 Institutional Failures Solicitor Misconduct Transcript Obstruction 0/12 Adjustments Granted Subject Access Requests SAR Tracker 3 overdue Pre-Action Letters Constitutional DWP Judicial Review Wheelchair Ramp
The 6 Cases 6
Chelsea Harbour Ltd (R1) Lower Richmond Properties Ltd & Vista (London) Ltd (R2, R3) Personal Damages Insolvency KB Injunction Defendants

Evidence & Documents 11
103 exhibits · 160 authorities · 1395 events
Evidence Hub Exhibits 103 Gallery Chronology 1395 Authorities 160 Key Quotes Revenue & DCF Costs Analysis OR Response + 15 Enclosures Applications All Documents
Reference & Tools 14
Ask the Case Search / Master Timeline Order Timeline CPR Heatmap CPR Dictionary Citation Index Glossary Evidence Trails Document Timeline Evidence Matrix Evidence Audit Argument Index Data Health Open Justice Assurance and Governance Health Report
🌱 Built with Eden Legal AI
✓ visited · ? shortcuts clear
Ground JR-1
https://www.michaeldariuseastwood.com/legal
Legal/Grounds/JR-1

JR-1

CE-File Deleted Set-Aside Application

LOCKED MEDIUM Priority
MEDIUM PRIORITY
7/10
Probability
7/10
Impact
49
Priority Score

Strong evidence but HMCTS may claim administrative error.

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.

Supporting Evidence

Authorities (2)

  • Civil Procedure Rules rr.54.4-54.5
  • Senior Courts Act 1981 s.31A

Exhibits (1)

  • CA-PROC-001 Procedural Mismanagement Evidence

Orders (1)

  • 13 August 2024 Master Clark First Transfer Order VOID

Counter-Arguments & Rebuttals (2)

What the opponent will argue, and why they are wrong.

HMCTS · MEDIUM Risk
They will argue

Application was not properly filed or was a duplicate.

Rebuttal

Application was filed through the CE-File system. a CE-File administrator deleted it. No notification was given. Applicant was simultaneously told anything filed in the High Court would be 'struck out'. This created a procedural impossibility: cannot challenge in HC (threat) or CC (deleted).

Rebuttal Confidence 7/10
HMCTS · LOW Risk
They will argue

The applicant could have refiled or escalated through official channels.

Rebuttal

What 'official channels'? The CE-File system is the official channel. When the official channel deletes your application and the alternative court threatens to strike out any filing, there are no channels left. This is the very closed loop that violates Article 6. The applicant raised it immediately and was ignored.

Authorities: AUTH-CASE-011
Rebuttal Confidence 8/10

Evidence Chain (2 proof trails)

EC-015 OVERWHELMING (10/10)
Pre-service transfer of BL-2024-001166 (13 Aug 2024, before service 28 Aug 2024)
Primary Evidence
LRP-CC-TRN-001 (Master Clark Transfer Order, 13 Aug 2024) + Court email 28 Aug 2024 COURT_RECORDS CONCLUSIVE

Transfer date and service confirmation date are both documented. Transfer preceded service by 15 days.

Corroborating Evidence (7)
  • F-TRANSFER-NEXT-DAY VERIFIED_FACT CONCLUSIVE
  • F-SERVICE-AFTER-TRANSFER COURT_RECORDS CONCLUSIVE
  • LRP-TRANS-001 (Transfer Order) COURT_RECORDS CONCLUSIVE
  • LRP-TRANS-002 (Second Transfer Order, 3 Sep 2024) COURT_RECORDS STRONG
  • LRP-CEF-001 (CE-File Deletion Evidence) OBSTRUCTION STRONG
  • F-CEFILE-DELETION VERIFIED_FACT STRONG
  • F-BL2024001166-ONLY-VALID LEGAL_CONSEQUENCE CONCLUSIVE
Overall Strength: OVERWHELMING
EC-030 STRONG (7/10)
Set-aside application deleted from CE-File system
Primary Evidence
LRP-CEF-001 (CE-File Deletion Evidence) SYSTEM_RECORDS STRONG

Evidence that application existed then disappeared from CE-File.

Corroborating Evidence (3)
  • F-PERSON-the CE-File administrator PERSONNEL STRONG
  • F-BL2024001166-ONLY-VALID LEGAL_CONSEQUENCE CONCLUSIVE
  • JR-DOC-003 (CE-File Deletion Evidence for JR) DOCUMENTARY STRONG
Overall Strength: STRONG

Ground Dependencies

If This Ground Succeeds
  • AR-7
  • AR-15
  • HMCTS found to have created procedural impossibility. BL-2024-001166 restored to High Court. Mandatory order for CE-File system audit.
If This Ground Fails
  • G-A3
  • G-A9
  • Court finds CE-File deletion was administrative, not deliberate obstruction. Jurisdictional void (G-A3) and default judgment (G-A9) still available.

Fallback: G-A3 achieves same result (High Court restoration) via different route.

Independence: Partially dependent on other grounds succeeding.

Where This Appears

Case Assignment

LRP/Vista

Linked Facts (1)

FACT-JURISDICTION-001

Linked Exhibits (1)

MDE-EVD-001

Linked Orders (1)

13 August 2024

Linked Authorities (2)

Civil Procedure Rules rr.54.4-54.5 Senior Courts Act 1981 s.31A
Admin Notice Parts: IV · Relief: G · All Grounds · Relief Sought · Argument Map

© 2026 Michael Darius Eastwood. Published under the open justice principle.

Legal Disclaimer · All Cases

Evidence
Open in full page