The Trial 

August 2023 

Procedural Failures, Judicial Bias & Financial Mismanagement

Judicial Bias

&

Improper Handling of Trial Proceedings

The trial held at my local County Court on 2 & 3 August 2023 began with my barrister asking the one question no advocate should have to pose at the start of proceedings:

“Have you had the opportunity to review the case files in preparation for today’s trial, sir?”

The Judge replied confidently:

“I have read all relevant material.”

But as the trial unfolded, it became clear that “relevant” had been redefined at convenience.

The Illusion of Judgment

Contradictions, Character, and the Collapse of Evidence

This wasn’t deliberation. It was deflection.

The Judge declared early on:

“I do not attempt to address the allegations made by the parties against each other. I am simply going to address the Heads of Claim.”

But to assess damages in a Schedule of Special Damages — one rooted in defective workmanship, withheld funds, and multiple settlement offers — is to examine the very allegations he refused to engage with.

To ignore the route but claim to judge the destination isn’t judicial discretion. It’s evasion dressed as efficiency.

Meanwhile, the Heads of Claim were gutted of the evidence that gave them form:

The sealed envelope — containing formal offers and financial documentation — had been opened pre-trial. The Judge’s explanation: 

• "It appears someone opened it by mistake… so this is now considered tampered with and can no longer be used as evidence.”

He then threw the envelope aside, dismissing its contents like discarded post — never once verifying what had actually been inside.

Expert reports were swept aside with vague caveats: 

• “Experts can sometimes get their inspections wrong.”

As if the consistency of multiple independent evaluations was less trustworthy than speculation from the bench.

Statements of Truth — submitted by witnesses — were flattened into what the Judge described as “mutual allegations,” reducing testimony to background noise.

The Judge’s role isn’t to choose silence when evidence becomes inconvenient. And yet — silence is what stood in for fact. 

A Character Judgment Without Cause

In his summing-up, the Judge offered just one character observation: 

• “The Claimant came over as assertive and argumentative.” 

No context. No cited conduct. No comparison to the Defendant’s behaviour.

It wasn’t a judicial finding. It was a subjective tone assessment — delivered without grounding and presented without scrutiny.

The Defendant, in contrast, was handled gently. His lack of legal training used to explain away contradictions, delays, and procedural gaps.

But me? A Claimant who brought organised records, correspondence, expert findings, and four offers to settle?

I was labelled assertive.

I was deemed argumentative.

But I came with facts, not fury — and I wasn’t the one on trial.

Somewhere along the line, my credibility became the one thing being cross-examined.

A Judgment Without Justification

The contradictions didn’t stop at character. They bled straight into the decision itself.

If the Judge truly believed:

• That expert witnesses were flawed
• That only minor “snagging” work remained
• That the Defendant had acted reasonably and in good faith

Then why did he award over £10,000 in damages and £35,000 in costs to the Claimants?

If those awards were justified, then why was the Defendant’s counterclaim for £4,800 treated as fulfilled, as though his contract had been completed to satisfaction?

The ruling wasn’t just internally conflicted. It was compartmentalised to the point of incoherence — bending logic to sidestep the reality that this trial wasn’t balanced from the outset.  

Why This Matters Even Though I “Won”

Some may ask: If the court awarded you damages and costs, why challenge the Judge's conduct?

Because justice isn’t a scoreboard.

A flawed process that delivers a partial outcome isn't justice — it’s damage control.

Post-Trial

Narrative Distortion. Professional Misrepresentation.

&

The Vanishing Judgment

The courtroom may have emptied, but the bias did not.

What should have been a moment of reflection became a campaign to reshape the story, misreport the outcome, and conceal accountability — not just from the public, but from the system itself. 

A New Story — From the Wrong Pen

In the weeks following the August 2023 ruling, the Defendant began circulating his own interpretation of the trial’s result.

The expert reports? Ignored.

The financial judgment against him? Downplayed.

His central claim? That he had “won,” and that the only unresolved issue was the conduct of the Claimant.

The rewritten version omitted:

• The Judge’s ruling against his counterclaim
• The award of £10,726 in damages to the Claimants
• The assessment of £35,000 in costs, payable within 14 days
• The multiple expert reports identifying serious defects in his work
• His refusal to accept any of the three documented settlement offers

Instead, he leaned on selective phrasing used during the trial — “minor snagging,” “Fit for Purpose” survey — to portray the outcome as a moral victory.

And in doing so, he erased both the financial truth and the procedural record. 

Distortion by Email — The Solicitor’s Reframing

Compounding this misrepresentation was the conduct of the Claimant’s own solicitor.

In an email dated 8 August 2023, just five days after trial conclusion, she wrote:

“I understand that, following the Hearing, the Barrister discussed with you the possibility of potentially agreeing a payment plan with the Defendant in respect of the damages and costs.”

This was inaccurate — and dangerous.

No such agreement had been proposed. No approval had been given.

The conversation was limited to procedural clarification — not negotiation.

Her wording reframed the Claimant’s position, suggesting an openness that did not exist — thereby weakening leverage, misrepresenting intent, and distorting record.

Even after the Claimant’s firm reiteration that the Defendant must initiate any payment terms himself, the solicitor’s messaging continued to blur boundaries — eroding clarity during the most critical window for enforcement and accountability.

The Judgment That Disappeared

Perhaps the most staggering omission emerged weeks later: the County Court Judgment (CCJ) against the Defendant was not registered.

Despite the final order requiring a payment of £40,926 to the Claimants, the CCJ failed to appear on the Register of Judgments, Orders and Fines.

My solicitor claimed it had likely been added automatically. It had not.

Repeated inquiries were met with silence, delay, or unsubstantiated denials. Three judges reviewed the registration issue:

• Two refused to act — without giving written explanation
• One recommended transferring the matter to the High Court — with no procedural rationale

No paperwork.

No formal rejection.

No technical fault cited.

Just a record that should have existed — and didn’t.  

The Judgment They Buried

My local court told me not to worry — the Defendant’s judgment is “recorded here.”

But the Register exists so victims don’t need to phone court archives to check if the person who harmed them was held accountable.

That CCJ never made it to the public register.

No one confirmed why.

No one explained who stopped it.

And that silence?

It wasn’t just a clerical gap.

It was a warning that never reached the people who needed it most.

My Personal View

What the Court Said vs. What Actually Matters

“It’s recorded here in [my local court], that’s enough.”

No, it isn’t.

A County Court Judgment is meant to serve as a public warning — a signal that harm occurred and accountability was enforced.

But in this case, it’s like placing that warning label on a dangerous product, then sealing it in a box.

The judgment exists, but the public is denied access.

The harm is acknowledged — yet concealed.

The Register exists for a reason.

It allows landlords, lenders, employers, and vulnerable individuals to search for verified court records — to protect themselves.

If the judgment isn’t on the Registry Trust database (TrustOnline), then the system failed to do what it was designed to do: warn.

• The suggestion that “people can call the court to check” is absurd
• Most don’t know who to call, what to ask, or even that a judgment exists
• TrustOnline exists because ad hoc phone calls are neither reliable nor accessible
• No confirmation of who authorised the non-registration
• Not one confirmation of who authorised the decision
• Just a system content to let accountability disappear unrecorded

If a judgment isn’t visible, what was the point in having one at all? 

The contradictions don’t end with silence. They’re shielded.

Before we follow the money, we follow the misconduct.

The next capsule documents how solicitor behaviour, billing distortion, and CPR breaches were masked by institutional language and met with regulatory inaction.

What follows after that is not a detour, but a structural map

A breakdown of how two regulatory bodies, both backed by the legal sector, differ in scope, access, and accountability.

That capsule untangles the funding, mandate, and reach of the SRA and Legal Ombudsman.

Revealing how financial structure enables procedural evasion, shields solicitor misconduct, and leaves the public navigating a system designed to defer, deflect, and deny.

Next

 Solicitor Misconduct and the Law Society Shield

Design & Copyright Owner Maureen Booth-Martin (MBM) © All rights reserved