![[2025] EWHC 1955 (KB)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_AJKZXmE.png){kind=logo}
Other Applications
Other Applications
I deal, for completeness, finally with other applications included with the version of the unamended Notice of Appeal provided to the Court following the hearing (but which differed from the version within the Appeal Bundle lodged by the Applicant). Mr Askan applied to the Court to:
Order a transfer/relocation of the case to the London High Court;
The case was not relocated, and there was no reason it should have been. It was heard by a High Court Judge ordinarily based in London, sitting on Circuit. I confirmed, to the extent relevant, that I did not know any of the judges involved in any of the decisions of which complaint has been directly or indirectly made.
Order an investigation into the Respondent’s conduct where fraud committed by the Respondent was confirmed by HMCTS Operations Manager Angela Hirst;
This is not something the Court has power to do. It does not order general ‘investigations’. This relates to whether, as Mr Askan alleged, the Club’s solicitors lied about the circumstances of the filing of the Acknowledgement of Service. I have seen the witness evidence in which the allegations were vehemently denied. I am plainly in no position to make any findings either way in relation to the truth of the allegation against the Club’s solicitors. For the reasons I have given, this is simply not relevant to the application for permission to appeal before me. This conclusion neither encourages nor prevents the Applicant from taking such other actions as he sees fit e.g. making a complaint to the appropriate regulatory body about the conduct he has alleged. Whatever the outcome of any such steps, it will not affect the substance of the Order upheld by this Judgment, and the suggestion that this conclusion has been tainted by fraud is wholly unsunstantiable.
- Heading
- Introduction
- The Claim and Counterclaim
- The Judgment
- The Court’s Approach on Appeal
- Grounds Of Appeal
- The Judge was wrong to ignore the Respondent’s threats of physical violence and acts of aggression in the Courtroom towards the Appellant
- The Judge was wrong to find, as he did, the ownership of the contested land
- The Judge was wrong to dismiss the argument that an unincorporated organisation cannot claim adverse possession
- The Judge was wrong to find that there was a claim for adverse possession and in granting adverse possession
- The Judge was wrong to grant an easement under the lost modern act
- The Judge was wrong to ignore the direct testimony of the respondent’s witness statement
- The Judge was wrong to deny harassment and nuisance when the respondent first committed an offence
- Other Complaints
- Paragraphs 5 and 6
- Paragraph 22
- Paragraph 24
- The Additional Grounds of Appeal
- Other Applications
- Order that the Respondent complies with the discovery application file on 12 December 2024
- Conclusions