BLOCKED FROM BRINGING ACTION UNDER THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT

​

 You can only bring a claim under ECHR article 6 by way of Appeal or Judicial Review. 

• As part of my request for appeal, I submitted grounds for Breach of article 6. But HH Judge Ralton ignored Ground 10 when he falsely claimed at para 22 of his Judgment that Grounds 2 to 10 were all the same argument. Not only were they not the same but none were the argument he claimed. Ground 10 was not referred to. in his judgment.

• My request for a Judicial review submitted that I had been subject to two unfair Hearings in Breach of article 6 ECHR. The High Court falsely stated that my request was not the type to warrant a review because my Appeal Grounds were carefully considered by HHJ Ralton.

•  Both requests to hear my case for breach of article 6 ECHR, were dismissed by false statements.

​

 

 Claimant continuously ignored.

 In three Hearings, I was subject to Judges that ignored my submissions.

​

  Take one example of case Law:

• Perry v Raleys Solicitors [2017] EWCA Civ 314 (28 April 2017) confirms the principle that a Court should follow when considering Loss of Chance Negligence claims. It should not consider the chance of success of the lost oppurtunity, i.e. should bot re-litigate the underlying Claim to determine LOC Negligence. That is a matter for Proportional damages.

• FOUR TIMES I SUBMITTED THIS  WHICH MEANT THE CLAIM SUCCEEDED AND DEFEATED THE APPLICATION. 

• FOUR TIMES IT WAS IGNORED, TWICE BY BOTH JUDGES.  WHY ?  Because they did not want me to succeed.

​

​

Case for Breach of Article 6(1) for an Unfair first Hearing. (Bristol County Court 18th October 2018)

​

Click here for seven acts of prejudice which caused an unfair Hearing.

​The following submits a Breach of article 6(1) ECHR, by twelve Grounds for actual and apparent Bias by the Lower Court.

​

• Case for Actual and apparent BIAS

 

​

Case for Breach of Article 6(1) for an Unfair Second Hearing. (Bristol County Court  5th June 2019)

​

Click here for seven acts of improper conduct and four further grounds for gross unfairness each of which resulted in an unfair Hearing in breach of article 6(1) ECHR. The Upper Court Judge acted with intent to refuse permission to appeal, in order to uphold the decision to dismiss a Claim he knew (and was told)  was wrongly and unlawfully  dismissed. The Grounds dismissed included Ground 10 which asserted bias by the Lower Court and a Breach of article 6 ECHR. The Appeal Court ignored this without providing a reason and thereby Breached article 6(1) ECHR.

​

​

Case for Breach of Article 6(1) in Cost Hearing.  (Bristol County Court  24th July 2019).

​

District Judge O'Neill was informed of an alleged threat and Police proceedings before the Costs Hearing (where the Claimant was later cleared - see below). Therefore by fact she was disqualified by conflict of interest, so should have stood down. She was clearly in a position of being influenced - the Legal test.

The Claimant even brought an Application to recuse the judge before the Hearing because he feared an adverse cost award - which is exactly what happened. She dismissed the Application herself.

​

• C made a flippant comment to the Court by phone before this hearing which the Court official wrongly took as a threat, despite then being told and accepting it wasn't a serious comment and no stated intent to forward it to the Judge. There was no threat. C was arrested for an alleged threat and faced a criminal Trial, where he was later cleared. The Judge rightly  took the view there was no intent.

 

And then she predictably dismissed all the Claimants grounds for costs and proportionality, ignored the CPR Practise Directions on costs, and accepted all the Defendant's costs including those not caused or incurred by the Claimant, to give a maximum cost award against the Claimant. It was a staggering amount for an application Hearing.

​​

District Judge O'Neill knew she was disqualified by conflict of interest because she was told about an alleged threat and Police action. It was impossible for me to have a fair Hearing presided by a Judge who viewed herself as a victim of crime. The reason I applied to recuse her was on grounds of bias,

As well as allowing costs not caused or incurred, she awarded costs where she previously said the Defendant caused them and for the Defendant unnecessarily expanding the claim. She ignored the Claimants points on proportionality and awarded maximum costs with no concessions  - almost unheard of. Costs were totally disproportional to the value of the claim (over 4 times higher). She was influenced by outside influence and appears to have set out to inflict excessive costs as a form of punishment. In both failing to recuse herself when disqualified, and how she conducted the Cost Hearing, she acted improperly, so caused a third breach of article 6(1) ECHR. 

• See here for details of an excessive cost award and  law for recusal.

​