Statistically devastating. P < 1 in 537M. But courts may resist statistical arguments.
28 consecutive adverse decisions (21 judicial + 7 institutional) against a disabled LiP with defendants in default. Probability of occurring by chance: 1 in 536,870,912. No rational decision-making process could produce this outcome.
What the opponent will argue, and why they are wrong.
Each decision was made independently on its merits. Statistical coincidence.
1 in 536,870,912 is not coincidence. Essop v Home Office [2017] UKSC 27: statistical disparity of this magnitude establishes indirect discrimination without needing to explain why. 28 decisions by 14 different judicial officers across 6 courts, ALL adverse, with defendants in default. This is a pattern, not a coincidence.
The applications were all meritless, so all were rightly refused.
Multiple applications concerned MHCM void orders supported by Supreme Court authority. Default judgment was a ministerial entitlement. CPR 40.12 corrections are standard procedure. RA requests are a legal right. The suggestion that ALL of these are meritless is itself proof of the systemic failure. A system that finds EVERYTHING a disabled LiP does to be meritless IS the system being challenged.
Each of the 28 decisions is individually documented with date, judge, and order reference.
Fallback: The 29:0 ratio is evidence supporting other grounds even if not independently sufficient.
Independence: Partially dependent on other grounds succeeding.