Read and decide for yourself
The register does not ask you to accept a conclusion on trust. Read the act recorded, compare it with the law and decide whether it appears adequately explained.
Open justice: read the record and judge for yourself
Multiple judges are alleged not to have applied the law equally.
Read what the public decisions, orders and contributor evidence say they did. Decide for yourself whether the events appear to be honest errors, serious failures, or part of the way institutional asset stripping operates against BAME communities.
There has been no effective personal remedy against the judicial acts identified—yet BAME families report irreversible property and wealth loss.
Judicial immunity protects judges from many forms of personal civil liability. It does not prevent lawful scrutiny of public judgments, orders, reasons and accurately reported judicial acts. This register distinguishes the recorded act, the contributor’s allegation, the source available and the verification status.
Share the public record
Open justice permits lawful and accurate reporting of public proceedings. Share this page so BAME litigants can recognise recurring warning signs and protect their interests.
Read what the record shows
Judicial acts identified in the founding evidence
Inclusion is not a judicial finding of dishonesty and does not prove bias in another case. It records the public act and the allegation made from the source material so readers can examine the record for themselves.
| Judicial office holder | Proceeding and recorded act | Founding contributor’s allegation | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| DHCJ Andrew Lenon KC | HNW Lending Ltd v Lawrence, [2025] EWHC 908 (Ch); judgment 17 April 2025 and order 19 June 2025. Defence and Counterclaim struck out and summary judgment granted. | The founding dossier alleges that the operative document was substituted, the claimant’s case was judicially reformulated, and disputed fraud, execution, escrow and credibility issues were disposed of without disclosure, expert evidence, cross-examination or trial. | Primary judgment identified Allegation disputed |
| HHJ Jonathan Klein | Order dated 9 July 2025 discharging or lifting interim protection in the related property proceedings. | The contributor alleges that protection was removed before the decisive instrument-validity, standing and fraud issues had received a merits trial, enabling irreversible sales and registrations. | Order identified Allegation disputed |
| Andrews LJ | Court of Appeal case management on 15 August 2025 and joint reasons dated 16 December 2025 in CA-2025-001529 / 001746 / 001861. | The contributor challenges statements about charge delivery, money advanced, ratification, substitution and “no fraud”, and alleges that distinct beneficiary rights and evidence were excluded while unresolved matters were treated as final. | Reasons identified Reopening allegation |
| Nugee LJ | Joint Court of Appeal reasons dated 16 December 2025 in the same linked appeals. | The same allegation is advanced: that the appellate reasons adopted or enlarged disputed factual premises without the disclosure, trial and participation required to determine them safely. | Reasons identified Reopening allegation |
| UTJ Elizabeth Cooke | Upper Tribunal decision dated 19 December 2025 and related refusal decisions recorded in the founding chronology. | The contributor alleges that High Court and Court of Appeal outcomes were relied upon as resolving instrument and property issues that had not been independently tried in the tribunal proceedings. | Published decision identified Scope disputed |
| DJ Parker | Wandsworth County Court possession proceedings in which the CPR 55.8 gateway was applied. | The contributor alleges that fraud and escrow defences were treated as not apparently substantial without a merits trial and that the transcript needed to test that process has not been provided. | Transcript/source verification pending |
| Master Bancroft-Rimmer | Court of Appeal-related determination dated 20 May 2026, recorded as treating CPR 52.30 reopening decisions as final and directing no further action. | The contributor alleges that a requested lawful adjudicative route was closed without identifying where the underlying distinct rights had previously been tried. | Decision identified in dossier Legal scope disputed |
| Master Brightwell | Order dated 7 July 2026 dismissing applications as totally without merit, refusing an oral hearing, awarding costs and recording reliance on CPR 19.10(2). | The contributor alleges a closed loop: refusal of joinder was treated as binding representation, non-adjudication was treated as final adjudication, and the request for the missing determination was then punished as TWM with CRO consequences. | Sealed order identified Appeal pending/reported |
| HHJ Dight CBE | Central London County Court decision dated 7 August 2024 appears in the founding litigation chronology. | A detailed allegation is not published until the precise sealed order, transcript and issue map have been checked. The name is retained in the internal verification list only. | Detailed entry withheld pending verification |
| Thompsell J | Interim-protection decision dated 2 July 2025 appears in the founding chronology. | No adverse allegation is published from the present source set. The entry is included to preserve the full procedural chain and will be updated only from the order and transcript. | No criticism published |
Do not use the register to threaten, harass or interfere with proceedings.
Do not publish private addresses, contact judges directly through this campaign, or treat inclusion as automatic grounds for recusal. Use the correct legal procedure in your own case.
Add your judge to the growing record
Submit the case and judicial act for private verification.
All substantive fields are optional. The judge’s name, case number, source and one contact method are recommended. Nothing is published automatically.
Prefer to speak before submitting?
Call 01883 777 160 or message Stolen Legacy on WhatsApp for immediate assistance. Contact us even if the property loss occurred up to 12 years ago.
Read. Share. Act.
Multiple judges are alleged not to have applied the law equally. Read what the record shows and decide for yourself how the asset stripping operates.
Judicial immunity has produced no effective personal remedy against the judicial acts identified in the founding evidence, while BAME litigants report losing homes, portfolios, rent, equity and generational wealth. Open justice allows public judgments, orders and accurately reported judicial acts to be scrutinised and shared lawfully.
If there was ever a time for BAME communities to be ready and act, it is now. If you know someone who believes they lost property unfairly, share this website with them. Stolen Legacy will investigate the available record, provide a free initial case-pattern analysis, and record interest in the proposed group action for compensation and institutional change.