BAILII
British and Irish Legal Information Institute


Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information

[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

England and Wales High Court (Chancery Division) Decisions


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Chancery Division) Decisions >> Armstrong v Temblett & Anor [2025] EWHC 1649 (Ch) (01 July 2025)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2025/1649.html
Cite as: [2025] EWHC 1649 (Ch)

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

Neutral Citation Number: [2025] EWHC 1649 (Ch)
Case No: BR-2022-000357

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES
INSOLVENCY AND COMPANIES LIST

Royal Courts of Justice, Rolls Building
Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL
01/07/2025

B e f o r e :

CHIEF INSOLVENCY AND COMPANIES COURT JUDGE BRIGGS
____________________

Between:
MARTIN CHARLES ARMSTRONG
(AS TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY OF VANESSA TEMBLETT)
Applicant
- and -

(1) VANESSA TEMBLETT (BANKRUPT)
(2) ROBERT TEMBLETT
Respondents

____________________

MICHAEL SMITH (instructed by MICHELMORES LLP) for the Applicant
RESPONDENT not attending

Hearing dates: 19 June 2025

____________________

HTML VERSION OF APPROVED JUDGMENT
____________________

Crown Copyright ©

    This judgment was handed down remotely at 10.30am on 1 July 2025 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.
    .............................

    Chief ICC Judge Briggs:

  1. Mr Armstrong, the appointed Trustee-in-Bankruptcy of Vanessa Temblett, seeks an order for possession and sale of a property held jointly in law by Mrs Temblett and her husband, Robert Temblett.
  2. The application for possession, dated 11 July 2024 (the "Application") seeks other orders concerned with the mechanics of the sale and a declaration that the beneficial interest that had once vested in Mrs Temblett, vested in the Trustee upon his appointment.
  3. At the hearing I noticed that the costs of the Trustee were high in proportion to the petition debt. It was explained that the actions of Mrs Temblett and her husband caused the costs of the bankruptcy to accelerate.
  4. In these circumstances I decided to reduce my judgment to writing and take the opportunity to interrogate the CE-File. Having undertaken this exercise it is evident that there is some information that is not available. This is mostly because the adjudication of bankruptcy was in the County Court of Central London.
  5. The Bankruptcy Order

  6. Mrs Temblett inherited a property known as 37 Brougham Hayes, Bath BA2 3QU (the "Bath Property") in or around 2006. The Bath Property had been vacant for many years. It was not in good condition and suffered from squatters.
  7. An undated document held on CE-File appears to explain why the Bath & North East Somerset Council sought liability orders:
  8. "This property first became vacant, according to Council Tax records, in 2001. The current owner inherited but did not take ownership until 2006. The property has remained unoccupied for over 20 years since the death of the original owner. As per Council Tax legislation introduced in 2013, properties left empty for two years and over, are subject to the Empty Property levy. Due to length of time empty, 37 Brougham Hayes is currently being charged an additional 300% standard Council Tax charge. The property was first referred to the Environmental Protection team in 2003, then 2013 and 2017 for vermin allegations (sightings of rats at the property) wasp nests, fly-tipping, and garden overgrowth. The owners complied with an Environmental Protection Notice in 2017 when told to clear waste and overgrowth form (sic) gardens but have not taken steps to maintain the property since. The Empty Property service was established in 2012, and records show that this property has been generating complains consistently since then. The reports and complaints have come from ward Councillors and residents regarding the dilapidating condition of the property and neglect of the gardens. This is a mid-terrace house and the neighbours in the adjoining properties have complain regularly about the detrimental impact the neglect of No.37 and its gardens have had on their houses, gardens and quality of life. The owners have not engaged with the Empty Property Officers that have been informing them of the complaints, as well as offering assistance in bringing the property back into use (practical support, loans, grants and VAT reduction have not been accepted)."
  9. The total sum owed the Council by reason of the liability orders is £15,007.79. The debt accrued in the years 2014 to 2018. No payment was made.
  10. The Council issued and served a statutory demand at 517 Bunyan Court London EC2Y 8DH (the " London Property") where Mr and Mrs Temblett live. The London Property is in joint names. The demand is dated 20 November 2018.
  11. Mrs Temblett made an application to set aside the statutory demand. The hearing of the application came before District Judge Hart on 25 September 2019. Mrs Temblett did not attend the hearing. Mr Temblett attended and asked the Judge for permission to represent his wife. The order does not record the reasons why Mrs Temblett did not or could not attend. The application was dismissed and Mrs Temblett was ordered to pay the costs assessed at £4,250. Permission was given to present a petition on or after 3 October 2019.
  12. The Council presented a petition on 29 June 2020. The hearing was listed for 18 August 2020. There is no record of the hearing or hearings that followed. The first hearing of the petition may have been adjourned and there may have been some delays. It was not until 22 July 2021 that Mrs Temblett was made bankrupt.
  13. On 30 July 2021 Mr Justice Mellor stayed the bankruptcy. An application for permission to appeal and stay was heard by Mr Justice Trower on 5 August 2021. The order for a stay was discharged. Mr Temblett represented Mrs Temblett at the hearing. The CE File does not hold the order made on the application for permission to appeal.
  14. The appointment of the Trustee

  15. The Official Receiver was appointed trustee-in-bankruptcy upon the making of the bankruptcy order. Mrs Temblett was sent a questionnaire booklet and asked to complete and return it to the Official Receiver. Mrs Temblett failed to do so. At a hearing before District Judge Wilkinson on 16 June 2022 the Official Receiver asked for a warrant for the arrest of Mrs Temblett and the suspension of automatic discharge from the bankruptcy order pursuant to section 279(3) of the Insolvency Act 1986. The suspension was to endure until Mrs Temblett cooperated by complying with her statutory obligations that were imposed upon her by reason of the bankruptcy order.
  16. The warrant for arrest was not satisfied. As far as I am aware the failure to complete the bankruptcy questionnaire has not been remedied.
  17. Mr Armstrong was appointed Trustee on 15 July 2022.
  18. The Bath Property

  19. It appears that on 7 August 2022, Mrs Temblett made a Subject Access Request.
  20. On 18 August 2022 Mr Armstrong responded to Mrs Temblett stating that a substantive response to the SAR would be made following a review of her file. In the same letter he explained:
  21. "I have a duty to preserve assets that fall within your bankruptcy estate. Presently, I have a limited insurance policy in place concerning the Bath Property; however, the policy will expire on 31 August 2022 unless I am able to attend the Bath Property, so that the condition can be assessed as well as take all necessary steps to secure and preserve it."
  22. He asked for a copy of any insurance policy and access to the Bath Property. He informed Mrs Temblett that due to the urgency of the matter he would have to make an application to court if she did not respond or comply with his requests.
  23. "If an application is made to court, then this will increase the costs that are incurred by the bankruptcy estate by way of legal fees, as they will need to spend time preparing an application notice and supporting witness statement, a certificate of urgency and instruct counsel to attend the hearing of the application. There will also be additional court fees, counsel's fees, as well as my fees in having to deal with the application as well. I trust that the above is not needed and you are willing to co-operate as obtaining insurance for the Bath Property is clearly in the best interests of all parties."
  24. Mr Armstrong advised that it would be better if she could settle the bankruptcy debts and she should seek independent legal advice.
  25. The response of Mrs Temblett was extraordinary. A thirteen page letter dated 22 August 2022, purportedly written by Mrs Temblett, covered many matters. I cite some passages here:
  26. "In the letter you made very serious threats about action you would take against me and my estate if you did not receive a reply to your letter by 5 PM on Friday 19 August 2022 - a day after the date of your letter. You knew when sending me your letter dated 18 August 2022, which was a Thursday, that it would be highly unlikely that I would receive your letter on Friday 19 August 2022, even if you had posted it on 18 August 2022. This makes the demand in your letter more threatening, malicious and intimidating…"
    "Your letter constitutes bullying and harassment. Through threatening and abusive behaviour you are illegally attempting to coerce me into acting to my detriment for the gain of yourself and those you are colluding with."
    "One of the many sinister subtexts and implications of your letter of 18 August 2022 is your certainty that non-compliance with the illegal threat contained within your letter…is sufficient to obtain a court order and an associated treasure trove of costs for you."
    "This indicates that you have already arranged with the court, through illegal collusion and corruption that you will obtain an uncontested, rubber-stamped order that is favourable to you and detrimental to me."
    "You… are attempting to illegally fabricate an narrative of non-compliance in order to pervert the course of justice and cause a miscarriage of justice."
    "You were put on notice in my letter of 07 August 2022 that any action taken by you in response to the fraudulently obtained bankruptcy order will be equally illegal, and you are not entitled to any costs."

    20. The correspondence does however state that the Bath Property is insured (nothing is said about the policy or when it is due to expire). No insurance document was produced. Mention is made of two claims issued against the Council for "defamation, mis-use of private information, offences under the Data Protection law and harassment by publication", claiming £2.5m in damages, and abuse of process where the damages claimed were £3.5m. The letter accuses the Council of lying about the state of the Bath Property. Before accusing Mr Armstrong of seeking to cover up material evidence, fabricating evidence and giving false evidence to support the Council, the letter states:

    "As you know, the Council has never set out the grounds for the charging of the empty property premium and has never produced evidence whatsoever that it was legally charged."
  27. The letter bears a manuscript signature of Mrs Temblett.
  28. A 5 page letter followed on 1 September 2022 also bearing a manuscript signature of Mrs Temblett. On 8 September 2022 the Trustee informed Mrs Temblett that he intended to apply to court for a possession order in respect of the Bath Property. An application for possession was issued on 12 September 2022, sealed on 28 September 2022 and served on Mrs Tremblett on 6 October 2022.
  29. Meanwhile Mrs Temblett wrote to Jake Berry MP who, at that time, was the chairman of the conservative party. The six page letter annexed a 57 page letter to Martin Armstrong who Mrs Tremblett claimed was a major donor to the conservative party. She claims that Kwasi Kwarteng appointed Mr Armstrong to carry out illegal activities (the activities are not specified):
  30. "Those illegal activities are evidence of the conservative government's utilisation of authoritarian practises to annihilate an innocent citizen who has revealed evidence of lawbreaking and misconduct at a very high level by several public bodies. These public bodies have colluded together to circumvent and subvert and pervert the law under legal process, in order to cover up their own continuous and accelerating law breaking and misconduct…"
  31. On 7 October 2022 ICC Judge Jones made an order for possession of the Bath Property and the costs of the application were made an expense of the bankruptcy.
  32. Mr Temblett made an application to set aside the order made on 7 October 2022on the basis that Mrs Temblett had no "notification of any hearing". The Application notice court stamped on 14 October 2022 states that he is not a party to the proceedings but that he believed that he or a witness (presumably Mrs Temblett) were vulnerable and asked for the hearing to be held in private. The reason given: "attacks on my wife and myself."
  33. On 21 October 2022 Mrs Temblett made an Application for committal against Mr Armstrong, and sought a stay of the bankruptcy proceedings and an order to set aside the possession order made in respect of the Bath Property. In support of the application was a witness statement running to 33 pages. The statement refers to a 243 page document served on Kwasi Kwarteng MP, a 308 page document served on Dean Beale as CEO of the Insolvency Service and an additional 421 page document served on the Insolvency Service. These documents contain a restatement that the bankruptcy of Mrs Temblett is:
  34. "Unproven because the amounts falsely claimed to be owing by the alleged creditor Bath and North East Somerset Council were illegally charged and have never been owing. The bankruptcy is alleged and unproven because the alleged creditor Bath and North East Somerset Council has never been able in nine years to produce any evidence whatsoever that the amounts falsely claimed to be owing where legally charged by the Council…The Bankruptcy is alleged and unproven because the judge who made the bankruptcy order, Deputy District Judge Adam Rushby Chambers, was not impartial and unbiased in making his decision. Deputy District Judge Adam Rushby Chambers who made the purported bankruptcy order in favour of the alleged creditor Bath and North East Somerset Council despite no evidence having been produced in the proceedings that the amounts falsely claimed to be owing had been legally charged or were legally owing was a director of a company that had received payments of over £355,000 from the alleged creditor…"
  35. Many of the following 15 grounds for setting aside the order made for possession of the Bath Property are difficult to follow but they do contain numerous extreme and unsupported allegations. The application was listed to be heard on 3 November 2022 in person.
  36. Mr Armstrong responded to the set aside application by explaining that the Bath Property was vacant and in a poor state of repair. It was in the sole name of Mrs Temblett and vested in the Trustee in Bankruptcy. It needed to be insured. Despite a number of letters to Mrs Temblett seeking information about the insurance she had in place, and asking for access Mrs Temblett, whilst she claimed the Bath Property was insured, failed to provide any evidence or documents and indicated that she did not consider that Mr Armstrong was entitled to receive such information. She had refused access. Mr Armstrong took out temporary insurance and it was a requirement that an inspection of the Bath Property be made if the period was to be extended.
  37. The day before the hearing Mrs Temblett served a 14 page statement where extreme allegations were repeated against "several public bodies". The hearing was adjourned to 11 November 2022. A few days later Mrs Temblett filed and served a third statement of 29 pages. The third statement repeats much of what had been stated in the first and second statements. Mrs Temblett did not attend. Mr Temblett attended and asked to represent Mrs Temblett. The oral application was refused. ICC Judge Jones found that the application made by Mrs Temblett dated 20 October 2022 was in all respect "totally without merit".
  38. On 21 April 2023 solicitors acting for Mr Armstrong, Michelmores, wrote to the court asking for it to consider appointing a litigation friend on behalf of Mrs Temblett. The letter discloses a concern that Mr Armstrong had that Mrs Temblett had been purportedly corresponding with him and his solicitors but had never attended a court hearing, failed to attend a public examination and the warrant for arrest issued by the Central London County Court had proved ineffective. Michelmores wrote:
  39. "Since the latest court hearing on 23 November 2022, a notice pursuant to the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 has been sent to Mr and Mrs Temblett, so the Property can be cleared of their possessions. The items in the Property are not in a good state but have nevertheless been stored (save for items that had perished and/or where there was a health and safety reason not to store them). The repeated requests have been made to Mr and Mrs Temblett to arrange collection, which have been ignored. During the course of the above matters, we have received a number of emails/letters, addressed to us (including members of this firm's Board), as well as to the Trustee, the Prime Minister other senior cabinet ministers. This correspondence has made allegations that the bankruptcy and all the steps taken are a fraud as well as allegations of theft and harassment etc.
    Although we and the Trustee considers that the allegations are meritless, we have the following concerns, which we consider we have a duty to bring to the attention of the Court: Neither this firm, the Trustee, the Official Receiver, nor the court have met with Mrs Temblett and have not heard from her directly; we have concerns about her wellbeing; and we have concerns about the wellbeing Mr Temblett.
    The Trustee intends to write to Mr and Mrs Temblett's local council (being the City of London) about the wellbeing issues.
    As Mr and Mrs Temblett have failed to collect their belongings from the Property, the Trustee will need to make an application to court pursuant to section 363(3) of the Insolvency Act 1986 for an order giving directions that will allow the Trustee to dispose of Mr and Mrs Temblett' s possessions"
  40. Judge Jones responded:
  41. "It seems to me that the trustees will need to issue an application for an appointment under IR 12.24 and/or CPR Part 21. I do not see that it would be appropriate to make any order on the basis of correspondence, without evidence. Consideration would also need to be given to the identity of an appropriate person to be appointed, if that is the course that is adopted."
  42. On 25 October 2023 the Trustee in Bankruptcy made an application that Mrs Temblett attend court on a fixed date and collect all the goods at the Bath Property. The Trustee asked the court to give a direction that if there was a failure to collect the goods and possessions at the Bath Property he have permission to dispose of or destroy the goods.
  43. Mrs Temblett responded by filing an 85 page witness statement. She said that if the Bath Property had goods in it the liability orders cannot have been properly made:
  44. "Michelmores, their counsel and Kemi Badenoch have misled the court from the outset of the proceedings and have committed perjury...Michelmores were fully aware, from thousands of pages of correspondence, that the property was not empty…"
  45. The witness statement is in a similar form to all previous statements and correspondence. At paragraph 23 of the statement Mrs Temblett writes:
  46. "The Secretary of State's and Michelmore's scurrilous letter to the court dated 21 April 2023 (suggesting that the court make an order that I'll be medically assessed for my mental capacity), and their enclosures to their letter of 03 November 2023, are evidence of the personal character assassination of me that they are attempting for the purpose of deflecting attention from the undisputed and undenied fact that they have no case against me have acted unlawfully and are unable to proceed…The issue here is not whether I am or am not lacking in mental capacity and incapable of participating in proceedings- and there is no evidence that I am lacking in mental capacity…"
  47. The statement is signed with a statement of truth in manuscript.
  48. The assessment for the premium empty property council tax was made by the Bath and North East Somerset Council. The assessment will have been made on the basis that the Bath Property was unoccupied. The assessment, as I have set out above, was that it had been unoccupied for 20 years. There had been complaints about its condition and Mrs Temblett had not engaged with the Empty Property Officers who had informed her of the complaints save on one occasion in 2017 when some attention was given to the garden. The liability orders were made by the Magistrates Court. Once granted, the liability order became enforceable statutory debt.
  49. It was open to Mrs Temblett to apply to have the liability orders set aside. Even if she was not aware of the liability orders at the time they were made, she was aware of them when the statutory demand was served. There is no evidence that the liability orders were appealed.
  50. By an order dated 26 February 2024 ICC Judge Jones gave the Trustee in Bankruptcy permission to sell or otherwise dispose of any goods in the Bath Property if Mrs Temblett failed to collect them before 8 April 2024.
  51. The failure of Mrs Temblett to attend court or the Trustee

  52. The Trustee informed Judge Jones at the hearing that he was increasingly concerned that Mr Temblett was the author of the correspondence and witness statements. A tracing agent had been unable to locate Mrs Temblett. Mr Smith, counsel for the Trustee in Bankruptcy explained in his skeleton argument:
  53. "9. What should have been a straightforward bankruptcy has been made unduly difficult by the conduct of R2, R1's husband, and the Author. Multiple lengthy documents containing unsupported allegations against T and all manner of other people/organisations ("the Allegations") have been sent to T, his solicitors, and a host of eminent people, including the last three Prime Ministers.
    10. The crux of the Allegations is that (it is said) T is part of a conspiracy to raise funds for the Conservative Party by seizing the Property. There is no evidence beyond assertion and supposition. The conspiracy grows with each letter sent, and now includes Bath and North East Somerset Council (the Petitioning Creditor), the Ministry of Justice, the Insolvency Service, the Department for BEIS, the Department for Business and Trade, multiple named Conservative MPs, T, his solicitors, previously acting Counsel (and his chambers ), most of the ICC Judges, District Judge Hart, who sits in Central London Bankruptcy, and Deputy District Judge Adam Chambers, who made the bankruptcy order.
    11. R2 and the Author assert (repeatedly) that the Allegations have not been denied, as though that gives them some special force. That is not correct. T does deny the Allegations. If he and others have chosen not to engage with them, it is because they appear to be the ravings of someone far beyond the reach of reason."
  54. The court has no definitive answer to give as to whether Mrs Temblett is the author of the correspondence, applications and witness statements. It proceeds, as it must, that the signature on applications made and witness statements produced is that of Mrs Temblett until it is shown otherwise. Similarly, the court must proceed on the basis that the correspondence bearing Mrs Temblett's name, is from Mrs Temblett. The Trustee was keen to establish that Mrs Temblett is the author and engaged in the proceedings. Accordingly he applied to the court for an order that Mrs Temblett attend court for questioning pursuant to sections 303(2) and 366 of the Insolvency Act 1986.
  55. By a 55 page witness statement dated 20 March 2024 Mrs Temblett (name typed as a signature) said (among other things):
  56. "44. The newest depraved tactic mentioned in Judge Clive Jones' Order dated 26 February 2024 is to have the Respondent, and her husband, ordered to attend Court to be 'privately examined'.
    45. The Respondent's husband has also been falsely accused by the Applicant as being in need of 'medical assessment' for his mental capacity, with no evidence of this being provided.
    46. No evidence whatsoever has been produced by the Applicant to indicate that the Respondent is lacking in mental capacity.
    47. No evidence whatsoever has been produced as to why the Respondent and her husband should be 'privately examined' and again no legal process is being followed.
    48. Yet again, no case against the Respondent and her husband has ever been made out, no case to answer has ever been made out, and there is no reason in law why the Respondent or her husband should attend any Court for 'examination', private or otherwise.
    49. Any reasonable person – in possession of the well-documented evidence of the depraved totalitarian tactics that have already been practiced on the Respondent in this case by the Court and the Applicant, and the well documented evidence that the Court has completely failed to protect the legal rights of the Respondent and has actively abused the Respondent's legal rights at every opportunity – would come to the conclusion that after entering the Court for 'private examination' the Respondent and her husband would never be seen again.
    50. This is yet another example of the motivation of the Court and the Applicant to suppress and cover up evidence of corruption by civil servants and politicians in this case, by having proceedings conducted secretly, in private, away from the possibility of public scrutiny. This is not the first time that proceedings have been conducted in secret to the Respondent's detriment.
    51. All the thousands of pages of documentary evidence in this case confirm that the bankruptcy industry, presided over by the Department of Business and Trade, currently under the control of Kemi Badenoch MP as Secretary of State, has yet again been weaponised by the Government to suppress and cover up misconduct by public bodies and public servants, including politicians.
    52. All the participants in the unlawful proceedings against the Respondent know that there is no legal basis upon which the Applicant can proceed.
    53. Because there is no possible legal way forward, the purpose of the current proceedings being unlawfully conducted against the Respondent, with the full support of the Court, and backing of the Ministry of Justice, is to deflect attention from the fact that there is, and never has been, any legal case against the Respondent.
    54. The other purpose of the current proceedings is to buy time for the Applicant."
  57. Mr and Mrs Temblett did not appear at the hearing on 25 March 2024 when they were ordered to attend an examination on 11 June 2024. The purpose of the examination was principally to be satisfied that the person making the applications to court, writing the witness statements and entering correspondence was Mrs Temblett. The order included a penal notice.
  58. The court, keen for Mr and/or Mrs Temblett to engage, made an order dated 26 April 2024 that gave them an opportunity to make any application they thought appropriate to be heard on 11 June 2024:
  59. "If the Respondents or either of them wish the Court to make any order at the June Hearing, which for the avoidance of doubt, includes an order to set aside or vary any previous order, they must make appropriate applications in accordance with Part 12 of the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016, which applications must be issued and served on the Applicant's solicitors by 4pm on 28 May 2024."
  60. On 11 June 2024, in the absence of Mr and Mrs Temblett, the court issued a warrant for arrest finding that no good reason had been given for failing to attend. Mr Temblett wrote to the court to state that he did have a good excuse for not attending. There had been a mistake on the public list which listed the case as a remote hearing when in fact it was an in person hearing. The error was verified by the court staff. As a result the warrant for arrest was rescinded and the examinations were relisted for 30 July 2024. The listing order dated 25 June 2024 made clear that Mrs Temblett was to attend court to be examined on oath.
  61. Mr and Mrs Temblett failed to attend court without reasonable excuse on 30 July 2024. ICC Judge Greenwood issued a warrant for their arrest.
  62. By an e-mail dated 20 August 2024 Mrs Temblett wrote (in 173 paragraphs) about the arrest warrant issued:
  63. "01. The First Respondent is forced to continue to seek justice from the Lord Chancellor and the Lady Chief Justice, because of the well-documented failure of the Insolvency and Companies Court to comply with legislation and legal process, and because of its well-documented abuse and exploitation of the status of the First Respondent as a litigant in person.
    02. The well-documented misconduct of the ICC has demonstrated it to be untrustworthy and undeserving of the respect of the public.
    03. This document is, however, also being served on the ICC, like all the previous documents received by the Chancellor.
    04. The First Respondent, on behalf of herself and the Second Respondent, exercises her legal right to oppose and reject the validity of the Order of Judge Paul Greenwood dated 30 July 2024.
    05. The unlawful warrants for the arrest of the Respondents issued by way of the order are invalid and unenforceable, as the Court and the Applicant know, and must be rescinded.
    06. No arrest warrants have ever been seen by the Respondents, and no warrants have been served on the Respondents.
    07. Judge Paul Greenwood knows his Order is unlawful, just like the other judges in this case know that their orders have been unlawful.
    08. I am the victim in this case. I am the victim of an 11-year-long fraud against me that began with a local authority's unlawful attempts to extort unexplained amounts of money from me that I did not owe and which they have always been unable to prove I owe.
    09. It is obvious to anyone that what the Court is attempting to do, to desperately vindicate 11 years of documented unlawful activities against me in which the Court has been complicit, is to turn me, a completely innocent victim, into some kind of criminal.
    10. What the Court is doing is depraved. The Court knows this and gives the impression of revelling in this ignominy, along with the other lawyers involved in this case, who have shown they will stop at nothing in competing to score points against me, a litigant in person with no legal training.
    11. The Order of Judge Paul Greenwood dated 30 July 2024 is a document made for the perpetration of fraud. It must be immediately rescinded. There is no need for debate about this, no need for a 'hearing'. It is a fact which all the documentation in the case confirms.
    12. Judge Paul Greenwood was fully aware from the preceding documents in the case which were before him on 30 July 2024, that there were no legal grounds for the issuing of arrest warrants, but the Judge issued unlawful arrest warrants anyway, as further weapons of oppression, intimidation and threat against the Respondents, when the Court and the Applicant have no way of legally progressing the proceedings."
  64. The warrants for arrest have not been rescinded or concluded.
  65. The Application

  66. In the meantime the Trustee issued the Application for possession and sale of the London Property.
  67. Mrs Temblett e-mailed the court again on 23 September 2024 in familiar style:
  68. "The Rt Hon Julian Flaux, Chancellor of the High Court, and the Rt Hon the Baroness Sue Carr, Lady Chief Justice, will be fully aware that their endorsement and failure to act on the well documented injustices inflicted upon the First Respondent and her family, which have taken place and continue to take place in the Courts for which they carry responsibility and accountability, is incompatible, upon multiple grounds, with the Human Rights Act and the UK's treaty obligations…
    156. The Chancellor and the Lady Chief Justice know that between them they carry accountability and responsibility for the past 11 years of fraudulent court proceedings against the First Respondent, an innocent victim, and the resulting miscarriages of justice against her.
    157. The Chancellor and the Lady Chief Justice will in due course be receiving a further document from the First Respondent reminding them of the gross misconduct of the trustee Martin Charles Armstrong in the proceedings, and asking them to account for the failure of the Insolvency and Companies Court – and the failure of themselves – to take action against Martin Charles Armstrong and Michelmores for their gross misconduct.
    163. The Chancellor and the Lady Chief Justice are reminded, yet again, that, because no court has required Bath and North East Somerset Council to provide any legislation, grounds or evidence:
    • no court has conducted an examination into the fraudulent charging of the amounts;
    • and no court has adjudicated that the fraudulently charged amounts are legally owing."
  69. The Trustee applied for directions in respect of the Application. Mrs Temblett e-mailed the court on 9 December 2024. The e-mail contained a heading: "Reminder". The e-mail ends at paragraph 172 with a question:
  70. "When are you going to take action to right the gross misconduct and corruption, the undisputed and undenied wrongs, that have been done with your full knowledge and approval, Chancellor?"
  71. The first hearing of the Application took place on 11 December 2024. Deputy ICC Judge Frith gave directions for determination of the application. Mr and Mrs Temblett were ordered to file and serve evidence in answer to the application by 4pm on 10 January 2025.
  72. Mrs Temblett wrote an e-mail to the court on 10 January 2025. The e-mail contained 163 paragraphs asking that the court set aside the directions order as she had not been served with the possession application and the application was "non-existent".
  73. The application was served by recorded delivery (with tracking number KD677050693GB) on 12 August 2024.
  74. The Attorney-General was among the recipients of the January 2025 e-mail.
  75. The final hearing of the Application was listed by ICC Judge Burton with a time estimate of one day (including half a day pre-reading) on 19 June 2025.
  76. The listing order was served by recorded delivery.
  77. An electronic hearing bundle was served by e-mail on 9 June 2025.
  78. A courier delivered a hard copy hearing bundle at 14:33 on 13 June 2025.
  79. On the same day the Trustee delivered by recorded delivery the Trustee's skeleton argument and authorities.
  80. The hearing of the Application

  81. The day before the hearing Mrs Temblett e-mailed to say that she did not recognise the proceedings. She wrote on behalf of both Respondents.
  82. The bankruptcy order made on 22 July 2021 is extant until it is set aside: Isaacs v Robertson [1985] AC 97, 101
  83. "The main attack by the defendant on the Court of Appeal's judgment was based on the contention that as a consequence of the operation of Ord. 34, r. 11(1)(a) of the Rules of the West Indies Associated States Supreme Court (rev. 1970) the order made by the High Court granting the interlocutory injunction on 31 May 1979 was a nullity; so disobedience to it could not constitute a contempt of court. Glasgow J. accepted this contention; the Court of Appeal rejected it, in their Lordships' view correctly, upon the short and well established ground that an order made by a court of unlimited jurisdiction, such as the High Court of Saint Vincent, must be obeyed unless and until it has been set aside by the court."
  84. Re Mid East Trading Ltd [1998] BCC 726, the court observed:
  85. " "[s]ave in proceedings to set the order aside, it is not open to this court to treat as a nullity an order which has been made by the High Court in its winding-up jurisdiction and which is not the subject of any appeal."
  86. The Trustee's statutory function is to get in, realise and distribute the bankrupt's estate in accordance with Chapter IV of the Insolvency Act 1986: section 305(2), IA 1986.
  87. Upon the making of the bankruptcy order the joint beneficial interest in the London Property was severed: In Re Gorman (A Bankrupt) [1990] 1 W.L.R. 616 at [624A-B].
  88. Mrs Temblett's beneficial interest in the London Property automatically vested in the Trustee immediately on his appointment without any conveyance, assignment or transfer: section 306, Insolvency Act 1986.
  89. As a general comment it is a statutory requirement that a trustee must take steps to deal with their interest in the bankrupt's family home within three years of the bankruptcy order. In this case, by issuing the Application the three-year period stopped running. The Application was made in time.
  90. Section 14 of the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (TOLATA) empowers the Trustee as a person with an interest in the London Property to apply to the court for an order. In a bankruptcy, s.335A of the Insolvency Act 1986 governs applications for possession and sale of a property that had vested:
  91. "(1) Any application by a trustee of a bankrupt's estate under section 14 of the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (powers of court in relation to trusts of land) for an order under that section for the sale of land shall be made to the court having jurisdiction in relation to the bankruptcy.
    (2) On such an application the court shall make such order as it thinks just and reasonable having regard to—
    (a)the interests of the bankrupt's creditors;
    (b)where the application is made in respect of land which includes a dwelling house which is or has been the home of the bankrupt or the bankrupt's spouse or civil partner or former spouse or former civil partner—
    (i)the conduct of the spouse, civil partner, former spouse or former civil partner, so far as contributing to the bankruptcy,
    (ii)the needs and financial resources of the spouse, civil partner, former spouse or former civil partner, and
    (iii)the needs of any children; and
    (c)all the circumstances of the case other than the needs of the bankrupt.
    (3)Where such an application is made after the end of the period of one year beginning with the first vesting under Chapter IV of this Part of the bankrupt's estate in a trustee, the court shall assume, unless the circumstances of the case are exceptional, that the interests of the bankrupt's creditors outweigh all other considerations."
  92. Mr and Mrs Temblett have produced no evidence in accordance with the order made by Deputy ICC Judge Frith.
  93. The Application is made more than a year following the making of the bankruptcy order.
  94. There are no exceptional circumstances to displace the presumption that the interests of the creditors outweigh all other considerations.
  95. Decision and conclusion

  96. Mrs Vanessa Temblett was made bankrupt following unpaid council tax liability order of over £15,000. The liability order was made because the Bath Property had been unoccupied for 20 years or more and was sparsely furnished.
  97. Her conduct throughout the bankruptcy proceedings has been consistently non-cooperative and obstructionist, with numerous extreme and unsubstantiated allegations made against public officials and institutions.
  98. Her main complaint, and that of Mr Temblett, has been that the liability orders should not have been made and consequently the bankruptcy order made on 21 July 2021 should not have been made.
  99. The bankruptcy order is extant and in effect: Isaacs v Robertson [1985] AC 97 is authority for the proposition that court orders stand until set aside.
  100. The warning given to Mrs Temblett by the Trustee in August 2022 that costs would increase if there is no cooperation was prescient. The costs have spiralled.
  101. There would have been no bankruptcy order if Mrs Temblett had chosen to pay the council tax when it was demanded. That opportunity lost, she could have paid the liability order made by the Magistrates Court within the time frame permitted. If she had missed the limitation period for appealing the liability order it would have been open to her to pay the debt and challenge it after payment.
  102. She had another opportunity to pay the debt on the service of the statutory demand. She chose to dispute the debt in court by making an application to set aside the statutory demand. She was unsuccessful. She would have had another opportunity to pay the debt in the period between losing the application to set aside the statutory demand and the presentation of the bankruptcy petition. She could have asked for time to pay the debt at the first hearing of the petition, if she could pay within a reasonable period of time. She did not do so.
  103. There would have been no need for a possession order in respect of the Bath Property if, as advised by the Trustee, Mrs Temblett had arranged to pay the bankruptcy debts and expenses in full in August 2022; there would have been no need for the possession action taken in respect of the London Property if Mrs Temblett had cooperated with the Trustee and assisted him to realise the value in the Bath Property as it is likely that the proceeds would have paid all creditors and expenses.
  104. The failure to cooperate with the Trustee or accept the advice he provided, the mass of correspondence, threats, allegations, the applications made and the choice taken by Mr and Mrs Temblett to resist the bankruptcy proceedings alleging political conspiracies, corruption, forged documents, and judicial misconduct has impeded the Trustee from administering and winding up the bankruptcy estate in a cost effective and timely manner. These actions have increased the costs unnecessarily.
  105. It maybe that the net proceeds of sale representing Mrs Temblett's beneficial interest in the London Property will be absorbed by the costs and expenses of the Trustee leaving little or no distribution to unsecured creditors. That does not mean that the possession and sale should not be ordered. The creditors have an interest in an order for sale even if the whole of the net proceeds go toward the costs and expenses of a trustee-in-bankruptcy: Trustee of the Estate of Bowe v Bowe [1997] BPIR 747; Harrington v Bennett [2000] BPIR 63.
  106. Mrs Temblett, although writing long e-mails, has provided no viable or any defence to the Application. No evidence has been filed and served by Mr or Mrs Temblett in accordance with the order made by Deputy ICC Judge Frith. She has failed to come to court to make representations.
  107. As more than a year has passed since the making of the bankruptcy order, the statutory presumption, that the creditors' interests outweigh all other considerations, applies. There is no evidence of exceptional circumstances to weigh against the presumption.
  108. I shall make a declaration that the Trustee has vested in him 50% of the beneficial interest in the London Property.
  109. I shall grant possession and sale of the London Property.

About BAILII - FAQ - Copyright Policy - Disclaimers - Privacy Policy amended on 25/11/2010