The KB Hearing: 7 June 2024

Michael arrived at court already in a state of extreme distress. The stress of facing the loss of his business property, combined with the late-filed counter-injunction he had not been able to process, overwhelmed him. He broke down in tears. Everyone left the courtroom to give him time to compose himself.

Michael's mother, who also has ADHD and ASD, interrupted the proceedings out of concern for her son's visible distress. This is a natural response from a parent witnessing their child in crisis, particularly one who shares the same neurodivergent conditions and understands the severity of the situation.

HHJ Kelly invited the Defendant's counsel to address the court first, despite the fact that this was Michael's application. The applicant ordinarily speaks first on their own application. This procedural irregularity meant that the Defendant framed the narrative before Michael had any opportunity to present his case.

Chelsea Harbour filed a counter-injunction application less than 3 days before the hearing. CPR 23.7(4) requires that an application notice must be served as soon as practicable after issue and, in any event, at least 3 clear days before the hearing. Michael, a litigant in person with ADHD, had not had adequate time to read and process this document.

Before Michael had the opportunity to present his application, HHJ Kelly demanded a sworn undertaking regarding the property. This was not on the agenda. Michael had not been given notice of this requirement. He was being asked to make binding legal commitments on the spot, without legal advice, in a state of distress.

Michael's ADHD caused a processing delay when confronted with the unexpected demand for an undertaking. The silence that followed was a neurological response, not a strategic refusal. HHJ Kelly treated this silence as a refusal to give the undertaking. The counter-injunction was then GRANTED before Michael had spoken a single word on his own application.

After the counter-injunction had already been granted and the undertaking demand had been treated as refused, Michael was finally permitted to present his own application. He spoke for approximately one hour. By this point, the outcome was effectively predetermined.

Michael's application was dismissed. Chelsea Harbour had already rushed Barrington Marketing into the premises and sold Michael's property, including intellectual property, equipment, stock, and client materials worth over 600,000 pounds, for just 1,100 pounds. The injunction that could have prevented this was denied. The fait accompli was complete.

HHJ Kelly awarded 10,000 pounds in costs against Michael. This was for bringing his own application. Meanwhile, Chelsea Harbour's counter-injunction, which was filed in breach of CPR 23.7(4), was granted with no costs penalty.

After the hearing, Michael filed an EX107 application requesting a full transcript at public expense. HHJ Kelly refused, stating there was "no reason in the interest of justice" to provide the full transcript. Only a judgment-only transcript was eventually approved after two months of chasing, form amendments, and Michael noting that his ADHD makes delays harder.

The judgment-only transcript that was eventually provided was revised by HHJ Kelly before release. A judgment-only transcript excludes the hearing itself. It records only the judge's ruling, not the exchanges, submissions, interruptions, or procedural decisions that preceded it. The judge who conducted the hearing then revised the only written record of it.