M. D. Eastwood
/
Overview & Briefing 4
Judicial Briefing Guide for Court How the Cases Connect The Story
Orders Sought 4
Relief Sought 33 Quantum (£8.2M+ pleaded) Why One Judge Must Hear All Settlement Exposure The Costs Trap
Void Ab Initio 29:0
29 Adverse : 0 Favourable 1 in 537M 21 Void Orders (All Void) MHCM Calendar Defence Admissions Defence Contradictions Equality of Arms Filing Pattern (0/12 RA) Staff Impact (6 Resignations) Gaslighting 13
No Time Bar Applies 9 Grounds
Grounds of Voidness 23
CA-2024-001353 · s.31A SCA 1981
Appeal Overview 23 Grounds of Voidness Argument Map KB Hearing (7 June) Waiver/Estoppel
Judicial Review 12
7 bodies · 34 ECHR · permission sought
JR Targets 7 ECHR Violations 34 Institutional Failures Solicitor Misconduct Transcript Obstruction 0/12 Adjustments Granted Subject Access Requests SAR Tracker 3 overdue Pre-Action Letters Constitutional DWP Judicial Review Wheelchair Ramp
The 6 Cases 6
Chelsea Harbour Ltd (R1) Lower Richmond Properties Ltd & Vista (London) Ltd (R2, R3) Personal Damages Insolvency KB Injunction Defendants

Evidence & Documents 11
103 exhibits · 160 authorities · 1395 events
Evidence Hub Exhibits 103 Gallery Chronology 1395 Authorities 160 Key Quotes Revenue & DCF Costs Analysis OR Response + 15 Enclosures Applications All Documents
Reference & Tools 14
Ask the Case Search / Master Timeline Order Timeline CPR Heatmap CPR Dictionary Citation Index Glossary Evidence Trails Document Timeline Evidence Matrix Evidence Audit Argument Index Data Health Open Justice Assurance and Governance Health Report
🌱 Built with Eden Legal AI
✓ visited · ? shortcuts clear
Legal/Open Justice Disclaimer

Open Justice Disclaimer

The Open Justice Principle

Justice must be done in public. This is not a modern convenience. It is a constitutional principle that predates the modern state. Per Lord Shaw in Scott v Scott [1913] AC 417: "Publicity is the very soul of justice. It is the keenest spur to exertion and the surest of all guards against improbity."

This portal publishes information about court proceedings that are matters of public record. All hearings referenced were conducted in open court. All orders cited are sealed court orders. All witness statements referenced stood as evidence in chief and became public under CPR 32.13. All statistics derive from verifiable court records.

Authorities for Publication

Constitutional Authorities
  • Scott v Scott [1913] AC 417 (House of Lords). Open justice is a constitutional principle. Proceedings must be conducted in public unless there are compelling reasons to restrict reporting.
  • R (Guardian News and Media Ltd) v City of Westminster Magistrates' Court [2012] EWCA Civ 420. The media and the public have a right to know what happens in court proceedings. This includes the identity of parties.
  • Al Rawi v Security Service [2011] UKSC 34. The principle of open justice is fundamental. Derogations require cogent justification.
  • R (UNISON) v Lord Chancellor [2017] UKSC 51. Access to justice is a constitutional right. Public scrutiny of the courts is part of that right.
  • Article 6 ECHR. The right to a fair and public hearing. Publication of proceedings serves this right.
  • Article 10 ECHR. Freedom of expression includes the right to publish information about court proceedings.

What Is Published and Why

Published
  • Sealed court orders (public documents)
  • Names of parties (public proceedings)
  • Names of judges (public servants in public roles)
  • Names of solicitors (officers of the court)
  • Filed witness statements (public under CPR 32.13)
  • Statistical analysis of court outcomes
  • CPR and ECHR compliance analysis
  • The author's own medical status (voluntarily disclosed)
Not Published
  • Private addresses of any party
  • Clinical medical details beyond diagnosis
  • Privileged legal advice
  • Without prejudice correspondence
  • Information subject to any reporting restriction
  • No anonymity order has been made in any of these proceedings

GDPR Compliance

Publication is lawful under UK GDPR Article 6(1)(f) (legitimate interests: the exercise of legal rights and the public interest in open justice). It is also lawful under Schedule 1, Part 2 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (substantial public interest conditions).

The author's own special category data (disability status) is published under UK GDPR Article 9(2)(e): data manifestly made public by the data subject. This information appears in the author's published book, in filed court documents, and in correspondence with HMCTS (Reasonable Adjustments Reference 67862925).

Third-party personal data is limited to information already in the public domain through open court proceedings. No private data has been obtained through surveillance, deception, or breach of confidence.

The AI System

The portal includes 'Ask the Case', an AI analysis tool. It is designed to demonstrate that the evidence can be evaluated neutrally. The system strips all party names and judge identities before analysis so it cannot be biased toward either side. Every question is evaluated by multiple independent AI models and stress-tested by a simulated panel of senior counsel. It answers from evidence only.

The AI system is not legal advice. It is a transparency tool. If the evidence supported the defendants, the system would say so. The fact that it consistently finds for the claimant is a function of the evidence, not the design.

Document Integrity

All documents referenced on this site have SHA-256 integrity hashes recorded in the evidence manifest. These hashes provide cryptographic proof that no document has been altered since publication. Any modification to any file would change its hash and be immediately detectable.

The portal source code, build scripts, and data files are version-controlled. Every change is auditable.

Purpose

This portal is not published to embarrass, harass, or intimidate any party. It is published because the author believes the public has a right to see how the courts treated a disabled litigant in person. The 29:0 decision ratio, the zero reasonable adjustments, the withheld transcripts, and the void orders made during a mental health crisis are matters of legitimate public concern.

If the courts had nothing to hide, open justice would cost them nothing.

Corrections

If you believe any information on this site is inaccurate, or that personal data has been published that should be redacted, contact michael@michaeldariuseastwood.com. Verified corrections will be made promptly and logged in the audit trail.

© 2026 Michael Darius Eastwood. Published under the open justice principle.

Legal Disclaimer · All Cases

Evidence
Open in full page