Deprivation of liberty on void order. Article 5(1) + 5(5). Urgent.
Deprivation of liberty pursuant to an arrest warrant founded on void orders. Article 5(1) ECHR requires lawful authority. A void order provides no lawful authority. Article 5(5) entitles compensation.
What the opponent will argue, and why they are wrong.
Warrant was lawfully issued by a court of competent jurisdiction.
County Court is NOT a court of competent jurisdiction for High Court winding-up (s.117(2A)). Wrong statutory provisions (ss.290/364 bankruptcy for company). Outside scope of limited transfer. No service. Article 5(1): detention must be 'prescribed by law'. A void warrant provides no lawful authority. Article 5(5) entitles compensation for unlawful detention.
The applicant has not been arrested. The warrant exists but has not been executed.
Article 5 protects against the THREAT of unlawful detention, not only actual detention. The outstanding warrant creates a continuing violation. Michael cannot attend court hearings, travel freely, or engage normally with institutions while an arrest warrant based on void proceedings hangs over him. The chilling effect is itself a violation of liberty.
The order itself cites ss.290 and 364 IA 1986. These are bankruptcy provisions. The company is in compulsory liquidation.
Fallback: Immediate application for stay pending appeal to Supreme Court if necessary. Apply for bail conditions.
Independence: Partially dependent on other grounds succeeding.
| Date | Judge | Type | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 19 November 2025 | DJ Mauger | Arrest Warrant | VOID |