CHANCERY DIVISION
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES
INSOLVENCY AND COMPANIES LIST
Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
MARTIN CHARLES ARMSTRONG (AS TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY OF VANESSA TEMBLETT) |
Applicant |
|
- and - |
||
(1) VANESSA TEMBLETT (BANKRUPT) (2) ROBERT TEMBLETT |
Respondents |
____________________
RESPONDENT not attending
Hearing dates: 19 June 2025
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Chief ICC Judge Briggs:
The Bankruptcy Order
"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)."
The appointment of the Trustee
The Bath Property
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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…"
"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…"
"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"
"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."
"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…"
"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…"
The failure of Mrs Temblett to attend court or the Trustee
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
The Application
"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."
"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?"
The hearing of the Application
"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."
" "[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."
"(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."
Decision and conclusion