Gopee & Ors v London Mercantile Court

that Mr Gopee, whether by himself, his employees, agents or otherwise howsoever be restrained from taking any steps to bring or continue any legal proceedings in any county court to recover money due or seek possession of any property arising out of or in connection with any loan, whether brought in the name of Mr Gopee or any company or partnership in which he had any interest or control or over which Mr Gopee had any power or management, including but not limited to Reddy Corporation, Ghana Commercial Banks, Ghana Commercial Finance, Barons Bridging 1 Ltd, Pangold and any company with a similar name without first obtaining an Order from the London Mercantile Court permitting Mr Gopee to do so;

that Mr Gopee forthwith do seek to have transferred to the London Mercantile Court all existing proceedings which fall within the definition in paragraph i) above;

that within 14 days lodge Mr Gopee do lodge with the London Mercantile Court a list containing details, (including date of issue, issue number, names of parties and name of Court) of all current County Court proceedings within the definition paragraph i) above;

that Mr Gopee might apply to the Mercantile Court to seek to vary or discharge the order within 7 days of it coming to his attention; but that any such application had to be supported by a witness statement lodged not less than 72 hours before the hearing and by skeleton argument lodge not less than 24 hours before the hearing; the judge advising Mr Gopee but not requiring him to have legal representation on any such application; and

that such order was to remain in force, notwithstanding any such application, unless it was varied or discharged by the Mercantile Court.

The 19 July 2013 Order was endorsed with a penal notice.

a stay of execution;

an order that there be permission for Mr Gopee and his associated companies to continue with the enforcement of various proceedings “that have already been concluded several years ago in the County Courts where regular judgment orders have already been made”;

permission to amend the grounds of appeal in order to include facts from other appeals.

Mr Gopee, whether by himself, his employees, agents or otherwise howsoever take no steps to bring or continue any legal proceedings in any County Court to recover money due or to seek possession of any property arising out of or in connection with any loan, or any proceeding relating in any way whatsoever to any such loan or such property (including without limitation any dealing with or use of such property and whether brought against the borrower, tenant, occupier or anyone else) whether brought in the name of Mr Gopee or of any company or partnership in which Mr Gopee had any interest or control or over which he had any power of management, including but not limited to Reddy Corporation, Ghana Commercial Banks, Ghana Commercial Finance, Barons Bridging 1 Ltd, Pangold, Barons Finance 2 Ltd, Moneylink Finance Limited, Pangold Properties Limited, Agni Investments Limited, Speedy Bridging Finance, Euro Bridging Finance and any company with a similar name without first obtaining an order from the London Mercantile Court permitting Mr Gopee to do so; (the order referred to the words in bold type as an addition to the 19 July 2013 Order and stated that it “should be considered carefully”);

Mr Gopee forthwith seek to have transferred to the London Mercantile Court all existing proceedings which fall within the definition in paragraph i) above; (the extended order stated that this repeated the terms of the 19 July 2013 order to which Mr Gopee had been subject since 19 July 2013);

that by 4:30 PM on 28 February 2014 Mr Gopee lodge with the London Mercantile Court a list containing details (including date of issue, issue number, names of parties and names of Court) of all County Court Proceedings in which any application was capable of being made, or in respect of which any enforcement was or would be potentially available, within the definition in paragraph i) above; (the extended order stated that this paragraph repeated in modified form the obligation which Mr Gopee had been under since the Order of 19 July 2013);

all and any such County Court proceedings not set out on the list referred to in paragraph iii) above would be struck out, alternatively transferred to the London Mercantile Court and struck out on 7 March 2014; and that all existing judgments obtained by claimants in those cases will be set aside from the same date; all applications arising out of such strikeouts and setting asides will be heard by the London Mercantile Court not in the County Court;

all and any proceedings of the kind described in paragraph i) above brought in the County Court but not in the London Mercantile Court after today’s date will be automatically transferred to the London Mercantile Court;

Mr Gopee will not, without first having obtained an order from the London Mercantile Court permitting Mr Gopee to do so, claim, give notice of, or otherwise assert in any way to any defendant in any case within the definition of paragraph i) above, any potential such defendant, any alleged rights under any alleged assignment or other transfer or change of name or seek to register, assert or otherwise notify such rights to any third party including, but not limited to, HM Land Registry or any similar bodies;

any application under the extended order must be supported by witness statement lodged not less than 72 hours before the hearing and by skeleton argument lodge not less than 24 hours before the hearing; Mr Gopee was advised (but not required) to have legal representation on any such application; the order was to remain in force, notwithstanding any such application, unless and until it is varied or discharged by the London Mercantile Court or by the Court of Appeal.

The extended order expressly warned Mr Gopee that the terms of the extended order differed significantly from those of the order of 19 July 2013 and should be studied carefully; it was also made subject to a penal notice.

an order setting aside the order made by Longmore LJ dated 29 January 2014 on the grounds that there was no hearing on 19 July 2013 before HH J Mackie and therefore there was no transcript alternatively for the sanction in the order to be lifted on similar grounds;

an order that Mr Gopee be granted permission to amend section 5 of his appellant’s notice to include an appeal against the extended order made by HH J Mackie QC on 29 January 2014;

permission to amend the grounds of appeal and an extension of time to file and serve the amended grounds of appeal and skeleton argument;

a further order that additional parties affected by the extended order (namely numerous companies beneficially owned by or connected to Mr Gopee) be made joint applicants/appellants.

by paragraph 8 of the order which I made on 26 March 2015 I granted Mr Gopee an extension of time to bring his application dated 26 February 2014 to set aside the order of Lord Justice Longmore dated 28 January 2014; (the recital to the order wrongly refers to an application for an extension of time for permission to appeal against the 19 July 2013 Order;)

by paragraph 10 of the order the decision as to whether Mr Gopee should have permission to appeal in relation to case reference 2013/2226 was reserved;

I further directed that Mr Gopee should provide to the court by noon on 2 April 2015:

The Court is making, on its own initiative in the exercise of its case management powers, unusual orders affecting an individual litigant in person and companies associated with him, who only occasionally instruct Counsel. I am therefore setting out my reasons in detail as this may assist Mr Gopee when making applications to the Court of Appeal. I am also taking the opportunity to summarise the current position in this litigation.

This judgment should be read with that in Barons Finance and Reddy Corporation-v-Makanju [2013] EWHC153(QB). That decision was about an application for permission to appeal. I later allowed the appeal for the reasons given in that judgment. When dealing with the background in that case I said this;

"This is one of a collection of cases from county courts in the Greater London area, which I will call the "Barons cases", which have been sent to the London Mercantile Court to coordinate. The cases involve claims and appeals arising from loans made by Barons and companies associated with it including Reddy Corporation Limited and Ghana Commercial Bunks (sic). Sometimes, as a result of clerical errors, other similar names are used. The loans were generally made to people who have arrived in this country quite recently and are under severe financial pressure, at high rates of interest usually secured by charges on the borrowers' homes. In some of the cases, but not this one, there is an intermediary between Barons and the borrower whose role has been controversial. In most cases the Defendants now seek to set aside or appeal against orders obtained some years ago. These Defendants generally claim that they entered into the loans under severe financial and personal pressures and have only recently learned of the legal grounds upon which the original judgments, often obtained by default or after only perfunctory resistance, may be challenged. The Defendants often say that they were unaware of their legal rights when entering into the transaction in dispute.

The Claimant is usually represented by its director Mr Gopee, a quasi litigant in person of great experience but sometimes by Counsel. The Defendants often represent themselves. Those retaining lawyers often do so only sporadically. The lawyers, operating on a shoestring, sometimes lack full instructions on the facts and, as a result, the legal issues."

There are currently 30 actions brought in, or transferred to, this Court. Of these 19 are stayed because they involve Barons Finance Limited, a company which has been in liquidation since 12 September 2012. The Liquidator has now had a considerable period to consider the company's position. I bear in mind that his position has been complicated by an apparent failure by Mr Gopee to cooperate and by an alleged assignment of the benefit of the company's loan portfolio to another of Mr Gopee's companies. For case management purposes, I ask the Liquidator's solicitors to let the Court know within 14 days of today when the company will be in a position to decide what position to take on the cases before the Court. A copy of this judgment will be sent to the Liquidator's solicitors.

I have listed above what appear to be the other main Barons companies. That list is not complete or accurate for a variety of reasons, not least typographical and similar errors by the parties and the various courts. When referring to Barons companies I include all those affected by my Order against Mr Gopee of 19 July 2013 as amended on 29 January 2014. I refer in this judgment to Mr Gopee as such but in some documents he is mistakenly referred to as 'Mr Ghopee'.

I have referred to the limited representation available to Defendant borrowers and the fact that many are not able to represent themselves. Some Defendants simply give up. An additional problem for Defendants, most of whom lack legal aid, is that neither the Claimant companies nor Mr Gopee ever pay costs ordered by the Court.

Mr Gopee is more used to County Court litigation where the Court draws up the orders. As a result parties have often failed to draw up orders after hearings or have done so inaccurately. Rather than allow the litigation to grind to a halt I have adopted the occasional practice of preparing notes and directions which my clerk has sent to the parties.

The relevant background includes the established and lengthy record of incompetence, impropriety, lack of integrity and abuse of the rights of consumers shown by Mr Gopee and his companies recorded and found by the Tribunal (Barons Bridging Finance 1 Limited Case No CCA/2011/0004 and 0005). That decisions must be read as a whole but Paragraphs 5.26 and 5.105 record;

On 14 March 2013, after hearing argument from Counsel for the parties and from Mr Makanju in person I ordered that existing judgments in the cases of Adewale, Adedoyin, Adebayo and Makanju, both for money sums and for possession, be set aside. I made directions for the substantive hearing of those cases. I made different directions in the case of Olatunji and stood over that of Nnabuife. I allowed Reddy Corporation and Barons Bridging Finance Limited to be added as Claimants but declined to allow Barons Bridging Finance 1 Limited to be substituted for the Claimant Barons Finance Limited.

I had at various hearings directed informally that all proceedings brought by the Barons' companies in the County Court for recovery of money or possession from borrowers be brought in or, if already started, be transferred to the London Mercantile Court, which is part of the High Court. I had however made no formal order to that effect.

In May 2013, having received an email from the OFT and forwarded a copy to Mr Gopee, and being concerned that the Claimant companies were still enforcing in the County Courts, the Court sent the following message to Mr Gopee:

On 31 May 2013 the Court received a letter from solicitors for the Liquidator of Barons Finance Limited stating that he had been appointed in September 2012 and that Mr Gopee was hampering his investigations and failing to cooperate in numerous respects. The Liquidator also stated that the company had been purporting to assign the benefit of charges to third parties even after the date of the winding up petition.

The cases against Mr Akinwande and Ms Boladale were struck out in June 2013 as a result of the failure by Barons Finance 1 Limited (and Barons Finance Limited) to comply with the directions of the Court. The Claimants have failed to comply with an order requiring them to vacate registration of charges at HM Land Registry. At a hearing on 24 January 2014 the Defendants through their Counsel Mr Ollennu sought orders to remove those charges. I will make an Order but require a draft to be sent to the other side and lodged in the usual way. Counsel asserts, but Mr Gopee denies, that other Barons companies, Speedy Bridging Finance Limited and Euro Business Finance PLC are seeking to acquire rights over the properties in question. Against the background it seems extremely unlikely that those companies have any interest whatsoever in the properties. If the companies claim any rights they must apply to this Court to establish them and be ready, should the Defendants apply and justice require it, to provide security for costs.

On 10 June 2013 after a hearing I made an order staying all the actions in which the company in liquidation was a Claimant on the basis that any other party affected could apply to set that order aside. There has been no application by the Liquidator to set aside that aspect of the Order. I also ordered that all existing or proposed relevant proceedings in any County Court be transferred to or brought in this Court.

On 20 June 2013 I sent out a note headed "Barons Finance Limited, Reddy Corporation, Ghana Commercial Bunks, Ghana Commercial Finance, Barons Bridging Finance 1 Limited and other companies owned or managed by, or otherwise connected with Mr Darham Prakash Gopee." The note in substance said:

On 19 July 2013 I made an Order, headed with a warning that any breach of it would be a contempt of court, in the following terms;

On 29 July 2013, after a hearing attended by Counsel for some parties, including the Liquidator and Mr Gopee I made an order. This provided that, upon Mr Gopee agreeing to provide the Liquidator within 7 days with any letter before action, pleadings, correspondence, and court orders or notices in his possession or control, which relate to the claims to which Barons Finance Limited was a party, all cases in which the Liquidator is concerned were stayed.

There have been other hearings not directly relevant to the current issues. For example a dispute concerning the payment of rent was resolved in the case of Mr Kehinde Gbadegesin. Procedural orders have been made in other cases.

On 22 July 2013 I sent a note as follows to the OFT, to HM Land Registry and to Mr Gopee.

On 24 October 2013 Mr and Mrs Ogunlye applied to this Court, without notice to the Claimant, and I heard live evidence from them. They live with their three children at a house in London E16 which they have owned since 1999. They borrowed £2,000 from Barons Finance Limited or Reddy Corporation in 2007. (It seems that at some point the lender became Barons Finance 1 Limited). They claim that they were seriously misled by the Claimants and by Mr Gopee. That claim is denied. County court proceedings were brought against them and transferred to this Court. At 9.15 am on 21 October they were about to go to work, as a support worker and a security guard, when their son answered the door to High Court bailiffs, supported by police, who evicted them in circumstances which must have been very distressful and humiliating. No notice had been given to them. Mr Gopee waited in a vehicle down the street. The children could not return to their universities that day. Mr and Mrs Ogunleye slept that night in a car and then secured temporary accommodation.

At the hearing on 24 October I set aside the eviction order on the basis that the Claimants could apply to restore it. The application came back with both sides having the opportunity to be present on 7 November 2013. I then said that I would put my concerns in writing so that Mr Gopee could obtain legal advice. I sent a note to Mr Gopee on 12 November expressing the provisional view that Mr Gopee's acts and omissions were a serious abuse of process. My note continued:

The Court has received a Schedule of Costs from the solicitors who represented the Ogunleyes seeking costs of £1872 and 'Eviction Expenses' of £780.76. Both amounts are modest. I order that that Barons Finance 1 Limited and Reddy Corporation pay the total of £2,652.76 into Court (or if they prefer to the Ogunleyes) within 14 days, as a condition of being permitted to continue to pursue the action. That order is without prejudice to the Ogunleyes' rights to seek payment of the costs from Mr Gopee and also to seek damages for unlawful eviction against the two companies and Mr Gopee.

I heard Mr Gopees's explanation for this conduct both in November 2013 and again on 24 January 2014. He says that there was a misunderstanding, that the Defendants should have received a letter from the Court and that he was confused himself. I reject this account. Mr Gopee knew very well that the case should have gone to this Court and that there was an outstanding application for permission to appeal that had prospects of success and that the Defendants intended to pursue it.

The Ogunleyes have suffered a gross injustice as a result only of abuse of the Court process by Mr Gopee when representing one of his companies. No lawyer would have acted as Mr Gopee did. In general a company can only be represented at a court hearing by legal adviser having a right of audience. The company does not have the same right as an individual has to represent itself- see Civil Procedure 2013 Volume 2 13-7 at p2897. The Court may exercise its discretion to relax this rule. Different considerations arise at trial-see CPR39.6. In addition to the specific concerns in this case, the past record of Mr Gopee and his lack of candour referred to in other cases mentioned in this judgement are as I see it reasons for the Court to refuse to exercise its discretion. As I mentioned at the hearing on 24 January 2014 I was minded to refuse further permission to Mr Gopee to represent the Claimant company in this case. However Mr and Mrs Oguleye now have representation by Counsel and no party in any other case has objected to Mr Gopee's role. I will not therefore take the point further at this stage.

I emphasise that when he appears in court Mr Gopee is invariably courteous and his submissions are brief and to the point. I do not suggest that he is intellectually not up to the task of representing the company. My concern is with the apparent lack of integrity surrounding his approach to some of these cases.

I have made the same Order in relation to permission to appeal in this case as in Konadu referred to below and for the same reasons.

By October Mr Gopee was still in breach of the 19 July Order at least in failing to file the list of cases specified in Paragraph 3. So the following note was sent to him on 28 October:

At the hearing on 7 November referred to above Mr Gopee claimed to have been under a misimpression about the scope of the 19 July Order. Again giving him the benefit of the doubt I informed him that, provided he applied for all further applications, whether issued by him or another party, in any County Court case covered by the Order dated 19 July 2013, to be transferred to the London Mercantile Court, the Court would take no further action as regards the case of Ikue referred to in my note of 28 October. That case was listed for hearing on 24 January but adjourned generally and I advised the Defendant to seek assistance from the Royal Courts of Justice Advice Bureau.”

As the Office of Fair Trading has been involved in the issues raised by these actions and representatives have attended some hearings I sought clarification of what if any steps the OFT was proposing to take. On 3 January 2014 the OFT responded and, having described past action, said this as to the future.

Given the widespread lack of representation in these cases I contacted the Bar Pro Bono Unit and supplied them with some of the basic Court papers. I saw two representatives of the Unit to inform them neutrally of the issues. I held that conversation in Court so that if necessary a transcript of that discussion can be made available. So far as I am aware the Unit has not responded or assisted any of those involved in Barons transactions.

On 16 December 2013 the Court received an email from Mrs Millinger the substance of which is as follows;

On 19 December 2013 I sent a message to Mr Gopee which again referred to the absence of the list required by Paragraph 3 the 19 July Order. That note referred to a hearing on 13 December when I had asked him why he appeared to be in breach of the Order. He told me that he considers that the word "existing" means "active" or "current" and that he is only obliged to transfer and list those cases where there is activity. I had told Mr Gopee that he was wrong about that but that since his mistake may have been genuine I would write to clarify the position. I stated that Mr Gopee had been required (and, if I was wrong about that, was now required) to seek the transfer, and to list, not only those cases which are active but all cases, including those where there is a judgment, which may be the subject of any application or enforcement in future.

The note continued: "5. I further propose to order that all actions within Paragraph 1 of the Order, not detailed in a list as required by Paragraph 3 of the Order and submitted to this Court by close of business on Friday 17th January 2014, be struck out and that any and all judgments in those actions be set aside pending further order of this Court. Before making that order I give Mr Ghopee the opportunity to make written representations to the Court by Wednesday 8th January and, if he so wishes, to make oral representations, himself or through Counsel at some time to be fixed in the week commencing Monday 6th January. I propose to take this step because it is essential that all 'Barons' cases be dealt with in one place, that the Court to be able to exercise its case management powers, that Mr Ghopee be required to comply with orders of the Court and that there be adequate protection for the Defendants, many of whom appear to be unrepresented and particularly vulnerable and at least some of whom have suffered prejudice by abuse of the Court process."

On 10 January 2014 I extended Mr Gopee's time for making written representations until 20 January and said that I would hear any oral representations on 24 January. Mr Gopee submitted written representations on 20 January suggesting that the Court was exceeding its jurisdiction, using its case management powers incorrectly and prejudging the cases thereby breaking the Human Rights Act. Mr Gopee also pointed out that he could not control defendants who might revive a dead case. In oral submissions on 24 January Mr Gopee said that there was a very great number of cases and he needed more time. When asked how many cases there were Mr Gopee thought that there might be 200. I emphasised to Mr Gopee that I was not concerned with any cases which were finished and where there was no real prospect of any further application being made. I also extended time for compliance until 28 February 2014.

I remain of the view that I should make the Order to enable these cases to be managed properly. All the cases need to be in the same place and Mr Gopee has to respect and comply with Court orders. Mr Gopee has not complied with the 19 July Order and without a real sanction I do not believe that he ever will. There are further considerations.

First Mr Gopee asserts that I am prejudiced. I can understand why he has that impression but consider that he is mistaken. In Makanju I identified between paragraphs 14 and 22 a series of reasons apparently applicable in all these cases why the borrower had real prospects of showing that the lenders and their assignees could not recover the loans or enforce their security. At no point since I gave that judgment have the lenders shown any coherent reason why those provisional conclusions are not correct. There is at present no reason to believe that any of the loans which are or will be the subject of litigation are valid or enforceable, at least without leave from the OFT or the Court, or that the charges obtained and registered are valid either. Linked to this is the lack of any sign of any of the Claimants actively pursuing any of these claims on their merits or even suggesting that they have a prospect of success. Their position has simply been that existing judgments should not be disturbed. In the absence of further relevant evidence or legal argument, I have consistently taken the same view of the merits of this cases. In fact I look at each case on its merits and if there are grounds on which these loans can be shown to be lawful I am keen to learn what they are. I do not therefore consider that this objection to the Court having full knowledge or control of these cases is valid. Mr Gopee and his companies have a right to apply for permission to appeal which they exercise.

Secondly Mr Gopee has abused the legal process. He has used his position as a quasi litigant in person to fail to disclose important information about the legality of transactions he seeks to enforce, and of past decisions of the courts about them. If he had made proper disclosure it is unlikely that he would have obtained many of the judgments in the County Courts. He has abused the legal process in the other ways I have explained. I also have no reason to doubt what the Liquidator's solicitors have said about Mr Gopee's failure to disclose the litigation to their client.

Thirdly Mr Gopee has been relying on assignments to bring claims and secure charges in the names of companies other then Barons Finance Limited. Some assignments were, according to their face, entered into some time ago but the dates of some of these are challenged. Other assignments are dated very recently and obviously open to potential challenge by the Liquidator. The assignments, even if valid, may mislead other courts alert to the name of Barons but not to those of the assignees. Action under the assignments, whether by litigation or registration, is particularly distressing to the parties affected.

Fourthly there are more general concerns about the propriety of the Barons companies as the Tribunal decision referred to in Makanju explains. There is also now an investigation of various Barons companies being conducted under Section 447 of the Companies Act 1985.

Fifthly the Defendants and potential Defendants are vulnerable for the reasons I have given and in some cases at risk of losing their homes.

I will therefore order that any claim in any County Court which falls within the terms of my Order of 19 July, as amended, which has not been notified to this Court by close of business on Friday 28 February 2014 will be struck out, or on that date, transferred to this Court and struck out. Any future claim within the terms of the Order of 19 July not brought in this Court will be on issue be transferred to this Court and struck out. Any applications for relief will be heard in this Court, not the County Court.

At the hearing on 24 January one of the Defendants referred to the long time it takes for a hearing to be arranged, apparently under the impression that the Court decides when to convene a hearing. It is for the parties to apply for a hearing and this will be listed urgently if necessary. Last autumn one of these cases was heard on an hour's notice.

The Court will not make orders, except in a case of urgency, unless the other party has received notice of the application, has been served with the evidence and has had time to answer it. Failure to comply with these elementary requirements of justice leads to adjournment, delay and waste of costs.

Parties are reminded that in the High Court they are responsible for drawing up and serving orders. If I make an order in court it must then be drawn up, approved, stamped and served by the party who obtains it.

Orders for costs are generally made only against parties to the case. That is why I have generally declined to make orders against Mr Gopee personally. He is rarely named as a party to the case. Any party applying for costs to be paid by Mr Gopee personally must make this clear in advance of the hearing and comply with CPR48.2, which deals with costs against non-parties.

In these cases the court has taking the unusual step of making an order of its own motion. I very much hope that Mr Gopee will comply with the order that I have made. If however any party claims that there has been non compliance he or she should make an application. It is not the role of the Court to police compliance with its orders. The Court will not, except in a very clear case, act itself to deal with an alleged breach of an order.

It is important to bear in mind the limited role of the Court. The Court is concerned with managing and deciding the claims brought in and transferred to it, and to some extent with the claims to be brought in future. More general questions of enforcement are for the agencies entrusted with that task.

The amended Order against Mr Gopee has been issued. This judgment also refers to orders in individual cases that I agreed to make at the hearing on 24 January but which I said I would communicate to the parties in writing. It is for those parties to draw up draft orders to give effect to my directions and to submit them for approval.

Copies of this draft judgment, which remains confidential until handed down, and of the amended Order against Mr Gopee and his companies will be sent by the Court to Mr Gopee, to all solicitors and Counsel who appear to be acting, to litigants in person who are actively engaged in these cases, to HM Land Registry and to the OFT. This is a draft judgment. Any suggested corrections of the usual kind should reach the Court by noon on Monday 3 February. The judgment will be handed down Wednesday 5 February. No attendance from any party is required.”

HHJ Mackie was biased in that he had prejudged all matters in which Mr Gopee and his associated companies were involved. He had pursued a crusade against Mr Gopee which was entirely unjustified.

As a result Mr Gopee and his associated companies have been and will be continued to be deprived of their right to a fair trial contrary to the Human Rights Act 1998 if all the actions are dealt with by HHJ Mackie.

HHJ Mackie had disregarded the changes in legislation to the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

HHJ Mackie had wrongly reopened past cases without regard to authorities such as Henderson v Henderson (1843) AER 378.

As a result of the extended order dated 29 January 2014, associated companies of Mr Gopee, which had purchased properties, or which had acquired charges over properties through subrogation as a result of paying off debts owed to previous chargees, had been unable to have their purchases, or charges, protected on the register or protected by way of a notice on the Register of Titles maintained by HM Land Registry. The result of the extended order was that Ghana Commercial Investments Limited and Moneylink Finance Limited were unable, despite the fact that they had acquired properties, or obtained rights to charges through subrogation or as assignees to submit any application to HM Land Registry to protect their interests in the properties. Accordingly by the extended order HHJ Mackie had effectively deprived Mr Gopee and the applicant companies of their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions and protection of their properties contrary to the Human Rights Act 1998.

The extended order was accordingly made without jurisdiction, or in excess of jurisdiction, without any valid justification. It was highly oppressive and of an exceptionally Draconian nature and ought to be set aside or quashed.

The fact that HHJ Mackie had stated that there were no pleadings in the action and that the decision was by way of the court’s own motion deprived Mr Gopee and his companies of their rights to a fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal in breach of the Human Rights Act 1998.

HHJ Mackie has now retired and therefore will not be hearing any cases. All cases will be dealt with either in the London Mercantile Court by a different judge (if they raise issues of principle) or by a judge of the Central London County Court, reserved to District Judge Langley or District Judge Lightman. Accordingly no questions of bias or prejudice can arise in the future and there is nothing to support the allegations of past bias.

Neither Mr Gopee nor his associated companies have lost their ability to acquire properties, or interest in properties such as charges, or to protect their interests accordingly by means of registration at HM Land Registry. The fact that the results of the extended order requires them to issue proceedings to justify their entitlement to do so is merely as a result of the case management directions given by HHJ Mackie which, given the appalling past history of Mr Gopee and his associated companies’ loans in breach of the requirements of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, are entirely justifiable. The fact that Mr Gopee and his associated companies are required to go through the hoops of issuing proceedings against HM Land Registry to satisfy the court that their loans or acquisitions are not yet another example of an appalling breach of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 cannot possibly in all the past circumstances be regarded as a breach of their human rights. If HM Land Registry wrongfully object to a request for registration in circumstances where there are no possible objections on Consumer Credit or other grounds, then no doubt it will have to bear the costs of any application made by Mr Gopee and/or his associated companies to obtain the Court’s sanction to the transaction.

In other words the orders of HHJ Mackie have not precluded Mr Gopee and his associated companies from protecting or establishing their rights in appropriate proceedings in the London Mercantile Court or in the Central County Court. These orders were a legitimate means of protecting the interests of the numerous borrowers whom Mr Gopee’s companies had dealt with in serious breach of the requirements of the Consumer Credit Act. HHJ Mackie had by the time of the extended order had extensive experience of dealing with the problems to which these cases gave rise. His response was in my judgment a practical and proportionate one.