Business, chattels, IP lost. But A1P1 claims against courts are rare.
Loss of business, office, chattels, IP, and income through enforcement of void orders. Article 1, Protocol 1 ECHR protects peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
What the opponent will argue, and why they are wrong.
A1P1 does not apply to speculative business losses. Only established possessions are protected.
The business was real and operating (GBP 624K revenue before lockouts). The office contents were real (no inventory taken at any lockout, burden on defendants). IP was sold to competitor (confirmed by Steinhuber WS). UC benefits were an established entitlement. These are all 'possessions' within A1P1. Stec v UK: social security benefits constitute possessions.
The deprivation was the consequence of lawful winding-up proceedings, not arbitrary state action.
If the winding-up was void (wrong statute, wrong court, during MHCM, without RA assessment), then the consequences were NOT pursuant to lawful proceedings. A1P1 requires any interference to be 'in accordance with the law'. Proceedings conducted under the wrong statute are not 'in accordance with the law'. The deprivation was arbitrary because the underlying proceedings were null.
Complete 8-year revenue history. Verified from accounting records.
Three scenarios: conservative GBP 3.3M, moderate GBP 4.7M, historic GBP 17.1M. Midpoint GBP 11.82M.
Fallback: Quantum recovery (GBP 20M+) available through damages claims regardless of A1P1 outcome.
Independence: Partially dependent on other grounds succeeding.