Judges Cover-Up


I knew the firm had committed a fraud, but I had no evidence to prove it. I therefore took them to the High Court as a litigant in person, for negligence in March 1997. I won my case against them and was awarded a total of £10. £5 for each for the two cases I had brought against them.

Because the firm had previously offered me £15,000 as a settlement and the judge only offered me £10, I was by default liable to pay their entire costs which was over £90,000.

I appealed against the judge’s decision in the Court of Appeal in March 1999, again as a litigant in person, this time pleading fraud. My appeal was rejected on the grounds that fraud was not pleaded in the original High Court trial.

The firm tried to force the sale of my home to recover their costs, but eventually settled for £30,000 in February 2001, because I had young children under 18 years old and they would have had to wait until the youngest was 18 before they could sell our home. In the end the firm conned me out of £62,439.


I complained to the SCB/SRA but they said they only investigated Poor Service and not Fraud. They advised me to go to the police. The police informed me that I had to go back in front of the Judge that had tried the case. I made complaints to the SCB/SRA between 1992-2010. They reiterated the fact that they would only look at my case if the judge who had tried my original case made a criminal conviction against the firm.