Proven Procedural Collapses'

The Breach Ledger – CPR Violations That Escalated Harm

  • Documented manipulation and regulatory deflection by both solicitors.
  • This index lists each breach as a standalone forensic entry, with supporting exhibits and judicial context.
    It anchors the procedural record and supports scrutiny of solicitor-led manipulation and regulatory deflection.
  • Full breach mapping continues across the next three pages and throughout Dossiers I, II, and III — evidence that both the SRA and Legal Ombudsman chose to ignore in order to shield the legal firms involved.
  1. CPR 35.6 Fee Liability
  • Defence posed expert questions; I was pressed to pay
  • Judge (16 May 2022) confirmed asker pays
  • No reimbursement offered
  • Exhibits: invoice, judgment extract, ruling
  1. Harassment Evidence
  • Police log and upgrade to harassment within 12 hours
  • Impacted access and ADR posture
  • Exhibits: incident numbers, officer notes
  1. Bundle / Service Obstruction
  • Egress-only service; postal service refused despite request
  • Disclosure forced via court
  • Exhibits: refusal emails, court email
  1. Live-Link / Home Access Attempts
  • Solicitor requested private consult and remote link
  • Court later rejected multi-party presence
  • Exhibits: request email, order excerpt
  1. CCJ Non-Registration (£40,926 judgment not registered)
  • Trust Register absence and three judge interactions
  • Exhibits: final order, payment window, enquiries log
  1. Enforcement Failure
  • Court refused to guide enforcement
  • No procedural support offered
  • Exhibits: correspondence trail, refusal note
  1. Regulator Shielding (Safeguarding Capsule – August 2025)
  • SRA reframed complaint as “service issue”; Legal Ombudsman dismissed safeguarding
  • GP letter named harassment and suicidal ideation
  • Harm was procedural, personal, and preventable

Exhibits: complaint forms, GP letter, regulator correspondence

 

Appendix 2 – Civil Procedure Rules Referenced in This Dossier

 

Each rule listed below was breached by the solicitors involved in this case, as documented in the Decision-Maker Index and breach ledger.

 

These violations are evidenced across Dossiers I–III and remain unaddressed by both the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) and Legal Ombudsman (LO), despite clear regulatory obligations:

 

CPR 1 – Overriding Objective: Fairness & Efficiency in Litigation

 

CPR 1.1 – Failure to Ensure Fairness & Efficiency

  • Repeated delays in managing litigation, causing unnecessary adjournments and disruptions to trial scheduling
  • Procedural mismanagement creating financial stress and forcing unjustified settlements
  • Failure to challenge procedural manipulation, enabling obstruction of fairness and transparency 

CPR 1.2 – Court’s Duty to Uphold Procedural Integrity

  • Failure to challenge opposing tactics, allowing delays and manipulation to continue unchecked
  • Lack of strategic advocacy led to financial pressures and settlement proposals misaligned with legal merits
  • Failure to push back against improper expert questioning

CPR 1.3 – Parties’ Obligation to Support Procedural Fairness

  • Misrepresentation of cost responsibilities and imposition of false deadlines
  • Failure to ensure full transparency in disclosure, including manipulated messages and incomplete evidence
  • Failure to uphold fairness in expert instruction, leading to delays and financial uncertainty

CPR 1.4 – Court’s Duty to Actively Manage Cases

  • Failure to ensure timely formal representation, leading to avoidable vulnerabilities
  • Procedural failures forced adjournments and trial delays
  • Misleading cost allocations compromised fair case management

CPR 3 – Case Management & Procedural Fairness

 

CPR 3.1 – Court’s General Powers of Case Management

  • Failure to ensure proper representation for critical hearings
  • Repeated adjournments and trial delays due to poor litigation management
  • Unjust financial pressure reinforcing improper cost allocations
  • Excessive procedural burdens placed on the claimant

CPR 3.3 – Court’s Power to Make Orders on Own Initiative

  • Non-compliance with procedural requirements forced judicial intervention
  • Failure to proactively manage case timelines

CPR 3.9 – Relief from Sanctions

  • Failure to challenge delay tactics
  • Lack of enforcement of deadlines, leading to extended litigation costs

CPR 3.10 – General Power to Rectify Procedure

  • Failure to address serious procedural errors
  • Missed opportunities to request corrective orders

CPR 6 – Service of Documents

 

CPR 6.1 – Scope of Service Rules

  • Failure to properly serve critical materials, causing delays

CPR 6.3 – Methods of Service

  • Improper shifting of service responsibilities onto the litigant in person

CPR 6.6 – Service by a Party

  • Failure to ensure correct procedures, allowing document mismanagement

CPR 16 – Statements of Case

  • Misused to pressure the Claimant into rewriting her case without legal guidance, despite being a litigant in person

CPR 22 – Statements of Truth

 

CPR 22.1 – Requirement for a Statement of Truth

  • Pressure to retract factually supported witness statements without legal basis
  • Misuse of Addendum Statements to revoke truthful testimony

CPR 22.3 – Consequences of False Statements of Truth

  • Addendum misuse led to credibility risks in proceedings

CPR 31 – Disclosure Obligations

 

CPR 31.5 – Disclosure by Standard & Specific Methods

  • Failure to challenge manipulated evidence, allowing incorrect submissions

CPR 31.6 – Scope of Standard Disclosure

  • Incorrect document submissions compromised evidentiary analysis

CPR 31.14 – Inspection of Documents

  • Failure to verify authenticity, enabling manipulation

CPR 31.17 – Orders for Disclosure Against a Person Who Is Not a Party

  • Failure to request third-party records, weakening fact-finding

CPR 35 – Expert Evidence Integrity

 

CPR 35.1 – Duty to Restrict Expert Evidence

  • Attempts to control expert analysis, undermining independence

CPR 35.4 – Permission to Rely on Expert Evidence

  • Delays in instruction led to trial scheduling issues

CPR 35.8 – Experts’ Discussions

  • Failure to ensure fair engagement between experts

CPR 35.10 – Contents of Expert Reports

  • Failure to challenge inaccuracies, weakening credibility

CPR 35.12 – Consequences of Non-Compliance

  • Inefficiencies caused by failure to correct misapplications

CPR 35.6 – Expert Cost Responsibilities

  • Misrepresentation of cost liabilities, forcing the claimant to cover fees
  • No reimbursement offered despite judicial correction
  • Financial strain reinforced by procedural misinterpretation

CPR 40.11 – Misrepresentation of Judgment Corrections

 

CPR 40.11 – Correction of Errors in Judgments & Orders

  • False citation used to impose a non-existent payment deadline
  • Failure to challenge misuse allowed manipulation to stand

CPR 44 – Costs & Financial Mismanagement

 

CPR 44.2 – Basis of Assessment

  • Misrepresentation of costs led to disproportionate burdens

CPR 44.3 – Court’s Discretion as to Costs

  • Financial pressure reinforced procedural imbalance
  • Misallocated costs violated fairness principles

CPR 44.4 – Factors to be Taken into Account in Deciding Costs

  • Failure to process reimbursements properly
  • Claimant exposed to unfair expenses, disregarding proportionality

 

 

Dossier II — Litigant_Record_II_Beyond_the_Dossier_2025

(Pending publication — evidence-led and under review)

 

Next

Dossier III — Beyond the Dossier

Threads emotional collapse, safeguarding failures, and post-trial distortion.

 

 

 

 

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

UA-54289644-1