7 public bodies have failed in their statutory duties. Each failure is documented with evidence, the applicable JR ground, and the statutes breached. Together, they form a pattern of systemic institutional failure affecting a single disabled litigant in person.
The Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to hear judicial review claims under s.31A of the Senior Courts Act 1981. The Administrative Notice (paras 8A-8D) argues that the CoA can and should hear the JR claims within CA-2024-001353 rather than transferring them to the Administrative Court. The CoA Guide 2025 Chapter 6 confirms this procedure.
Draft order 17 in the N244 application expressly requests that the JR claims NOT be transferred to the Administrative Court. Transferring would separate the JR from the void order declarations, creating duplicative proceedings and further delay for a disabled litigant in person. s.31A SCA 1981 permits the CoA to determine JR claims where it is just and convenient to do so.
The 7 JR targets below are all connected to the same cascade of void orders. Hearing them together is not just convenient. It is necessary to prevent the systemic failures from being examined in isolation when they are a single pattern.
Irrationality (Wednesbury unreasonableness). A public body with a statutory duty to provide access to justice cannot rationally ignore 16 substantive communications and withhold transcripts for 200+ days. The failure to implement reasonable adjustments despite a formal reference number demonstrates a systemic refusal to comply with statutory duties.
Pre-action. Letter Before Action in preparation. Formal complaint exhausted with no substantive outcome.
Illegality and procedural unfairness. The JCIO exists to investigate judicial conduct complaints. Using the existence of a complaint as evidence against the complainant defeats the purpose of the statutory scheme and creates a chilling effect on access to the complaints process. No reasonable person would file a complaint if doing so could be cited against them in the very proceedings that prompted it.
Complaint outstanding. 13+ months without substantive response. JR grounds crystallising.
Illegality and irrationality. The Official Receiver has a duty under IA 1986 s.132 to investigate the affairs of the company. Abandoning 9.2M in claims without investigation, misrepresenting the contact history, and obtaining an arrest warrant during a statutory moratorium are all ultra vires. The misrepresentation of contact history is particularly serious because it was used to justify inaction.
Pre-action. Arrest warrant outstanding. No stay obtained. DCQ deadline 28 April 2026.
Failure to investigate. The SRA has a statutory duty to investigate allegations of professional misconduct. Making false statements under oath is a criminal offence (Perjury Act 1911 s.1) and a serious breach of the SRA Code of Conduct (Principle 1: acting in a way that upholds the rule of law; Principle 2: acting with integrity). The failure to investigate despite clear documentary evidence is irrational.
Formal complaint filed. No investigation commenced. Pre-action under consideration.
Illegality. HMRC has a duty under EA 2010 s.20 to make reasonable adjustments before taking enforcement action against a disabled person. The Public Sector Equality Duty (EA 2010 s.149) requires HMRC to have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination. Proceeding to gazette and petition without adjustments is a breach of both duties. The refusal letter is direct evidence of the breach.
Pre-action. This is the root cause of the entire insolvency chain. Letter Before Action in preparation.
Illegality and irrationality. Closing a Universal Credit claim within 24 hours of a disability rights assertion, where the claimant was subsequently awarded LCWRA, demonstrates either retaliation or a failure to apply the correct legal test. The LCWRA award is conclusive evidence that the sanctions were wrong. The timing of the review creates an inference of retaliatory conduct.
Letter Before Action sent and acknowledged. JR claim to be filed.
Failure to investigate. Filing a defence 27 days late without seeking relief is a serious procedural failure by any legal professional. Misstating the law on late defences in a skeleton argument compounds the concern. The BSB has a duty to investigate complaints about barristers who may have breached their professional obligations. A KC filing a late defence without relief and then misstating the applicable law warrants investigation.
Complaint under consideration. Awaiting BSB response.
Every one of these 7 bodies owes duties under the Equality Act 2010. Every one of them was informed that the person they were dealing with has ADHD and autism. Every one of them failed to make reasonable adjustments. In several cases, the disability was used against the person rather than accommodated.
This is not 7 separate failures. It is one systemic failure across 7 institutions. The pattern is the evidence. A single disabled litigant in person, navigating the justice system without legal representation, encountered the same institutional indifference at every level. The probability of this occurring by coincidence is vanishingly small.
The judicial review claims that follow are not about winning arguments. They are about establishing that public bodies cannot ignore their statutory duties and then rely on the complexity of the system to avoid accountability.