17 locked arguments across 4 cases. Each has been verified, approved, and locked. Click any case badge to see which case each argument relates to.
Any enforcement step taken between 28.12.2024 and 16.04.2025 is void ab initio under Reg 7(12). The court has 'no discretion'.
A 7-day temporal nexus exists between the complaint (20.02.25) and adverse orders (27.02.25), creating an objective appearance of bias.
The 13.08.24 transfer was pre-service. The court had no jurisdiction. This renders the transfer and all subsequent County Court proceedings (BL-2024-001166) void. The PE Transfer was also Ultra Vires.
CPR 12.3 confers a mandatory entitlement to judgment. 'May' means 'must' (Messih).
Because the 06.01.25 Order was void (MHCM), the 19.08.25 Summary Judgment founded upon it is also void. 'You cannot put something on nothing' (MacFoy).
29:0 outcome asymmetry indicates apparent bias (Probability 1 in 537 million).
The transfer of the Public Examination (CR-2024-000527) to CLCC is ultra vires. SI 2014/817 Schedule 1 mandates corporate insolvency in London MUST be heard in the High Court.
The LCRO of 27.02.2025 cites the 20.02.2025 complaint as justification. This weaponizes the complaint mechanism, violating the Georgiou principle.
The systematic pattern of 22 orders without applications favouring defendants vs 0 of 16+ claimant applications granted represents a denial of access to justice (R (UNISON) v Lord Chancellor).
The Defendants' six separate lockouts (two post-warning) constitute a 'course of conduct' under s.1 PHA 1997. This creates vicarious liability for corporate defendants (Majrowski).
The 77.5% revenue collapse (£624k to £140k) is directly causally linked to the lockouts. This establishes the quantum foundation for the default judgment.
Under Walsh v Lonsdale (1882) and Norglen [1999] principles, equity treats as done that which ought to be done – the company's causes of action were effectively assigned to the Claimant, preserving his standing despite technical formalities.
Failure to provide reasonable adjustments for a disabled litigant (ADHD/ASD) led to fundamental procedural unfairness – any hearing under such conditions is invalid (Equality Act duty).
Leave to continue proceedings under Insolvency Act 1986 s.130(2) can be granted retrospectively (Re Saunders (a bankrupt) [1997] Ch 60); lack of prior leave does not render proceedings a nullity – they are irregular but capable of validation.
A Limited Civil Restraint Order requires at least two valid TWM certifications. With all four TWM orders void, the LCRO’s precondition evaporates – the LCRO cannot stand and is itself a nullity.
Transferring a multi-million-pound claim from the High Court to the County Court without jurisdiction (and without the claimant’s consent or proper safeguards) was beyond the court’s powers – an unlawful transfer that is void ab initio.
Listing the case as "A v B" (anonymous parties) without lawful basis breached the open justice principle (Scott v Scott) – a fundamental procedural irregularity rendering the proceeding defective.