Everything that could have gone wrong did. Safeguards that should have been adhered to were simply ignored. From the defunct undated contract that was supposed to have amendments, Section 15 was taken out, old documents added, no independent valuation, no appointment by President of RICS, valuation was by the purchaser (or his son Mathew Fell (both unqualified), Fraudulent Valuation of Stock by MAF and Mathew Fell, Accountant Appointment not valid, Fraudulent figures by Accountant, Collusion, figures missed, fraudulent discounts, CP35 not adhered to, Coercion, deception as to the real purchasers, perjury. Abuse of Process etc.

ABUSE OF PROCESS

Deliberately running one party out of funds to pay for legal representation in the UK is viewed by courts as an abuse of process and a violation of litigation conduct rules. While forcing a party to exhaust their funds (often called "litigation by attrition") is a tactic used to gain an unfair advantage, the court has mechanisms to penalize this behavior.

1. Legal Consequences and Conduct

• Abuse of Process: Deliberately attempting to exhaust a party's financial resources, particularly to prevent them from accessing justice, is considered an abuse of process.

• Unreasonable Behavior: The courts in England and Wales are obligated to ensure cases are conducted efficiently and at a proportionate cost. Deliberately causing financial exhaustion is viewed as "unreasonable behaviour."

• Civil Restraint Orders (CRO): If a party (or a litigant in person) makes numerous, meritless applications with the aim of draining the other side's resources, the High Court can impose a Civil Restraint Order to limit their ability to make further applications.

• Solicitor Misconduct: Solicitors are bound by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) to not take unfair advantage of others and must act with integrity. A solicitor assisting a client in such tactics risks violating these rules.

2. Court Remedies

If a party is being deliberately run out of funds, the injured party can seek the following:

• Costs Orders: The court can order the party acting unreasonably to pay the costs of the victim, potentially on an indemnity basis (a higher level of recovery).

• Interim Payments/Payments on Account: To prevent a party from being forced to become a Litigant in Person (LiP) due to a lack of funds, the court may order the wealthy party to make interim payments on account of costs.

• Hardship Provisions (Family Law): In family proceedings (e.g., divorce), where one party controls the assets and restricts the other from paying legal fees, the court can make "Legal Services Payment Orders" to ensure both parties can be represented.

ABUSE OF PROCESS

3. What to do if you are being "run out of money"

• Apply for Legal Services Payment Order: If this is happening in divorce, you can apply for an order directing the other party to pay for your legal representation.

• File for Costs: If the other party is acting, you can ask the court to order that they pay your legal fees immediately, rather than waiting until the end of the case.

• Utilize Litigant in Person Support: If you are forced to represent yourself, you can use the Chancery Bar Litigants in Person Support (CLIPS) scheme or similar pro bono services for assistance.

• Seek Costs for Pro Bono Representation: If you find free legal help (pro bono), your representative can apply for a costs order against the other party, which is paid to The Access to Justice Foundation.

In UK civil law, an "abuse of process" occurs when legal proceedings are used for a purpose or in a manner significantly different from their ordinary and proper use. While primarily a doctrine of the court to protect its own integrity, it has specific implications for barristers regarding their professional conduct and potential liability for costs.

Ground for Abuse of Process

Under Civil Procedure Rule (CPR) 3.4(2)(b), courts may strike out a claim or defense if it constitutes an abuse of process.

• Collateral Purpose: Using litigation to achieve an objective other than the legal remedy sought (e.g., to cause commercial prejudice).

Fraud can be a core component or a direct cause of abuse of process, as it involves using the legal system's procedures (like lawsuits or judgments) for dishonest aims, such as enforcing false claims or gaining property unfairly, which is exactly what the legal concept of "abuse of process" covers. While fraud focuses on intentional deception for gain, abuse of process specifically deals with misusing established legal mechanisms for improper, ulterior motives, often overlapping when deception is used within legal proceedings.

How Fraud Becomes Abuse of Process:

• Fraudulent Use of Process: Filing a lawsuit based on deliberately false evidence or testimony to mislead the court and achieve a wrongful outcome is a classic example of fraudulent use of process, a form of abuse.

• Misusing Legal Tools: Using legal actions (like obtaining a judgment) as a disguise to seize property or exert pressure, rather than for the actual justice the process is designed for, constitutes abuse.

• Intent to Deceive: When fraud (intentional deception) is the method used to improperly manipulate the legal process itself, it becomes abuse of process..

It is also a specific criminal offence under the Fraud Act 2006. While the Fraud Act deals with criminal fraud, abuse of process in civil/criminal proceedings refers to misusing the court system itself, which can be an abuse if actions are dishonest

Fraud as an Abuse of Process

• Misuse of Court System: Bringing a claim or defence knowing it's fraudulent (e.g., false evidence) to gain an unfair advantage is considered an abuse of process, as it corrupts the administration of justice.

• Setting Aside Judgments: Fraudulent judgments can be set aside, but often require new evidence, though recent Supreme Court cases affirm that fraud "unravels all," even challenging judgments where fraud wasn't raised before.

Fraud as a Specific Crime (Fraud Act 2006)

• Fraud by False Representation: Dishonestly making a false statement to cause loss or gain.

• Fraud by Failing to Disclose Information: Not disclosing info when legally required.

• Fraud by Abuse of Position: A person in a position of trust dishonestly abuses it for gain or to cause loss ( Valuer of Assets).

Undervaluation constitutes Fraud by Abuse of Position under Section 4 of the Fraud Act 2006 in UK law

This offence occurs when a person in a position of trust—such as a director, trustee, agent, employee or Executor dishonestly undervalues assets or services to cause loss to another or make a personal gain.

• Key details regarding this offence include:

• Definition of Position: The individual must be in a position where they are expected to safeguard, or not act against, the financial interests of another person.

• Elements of the Offence:

  • Abuse: The person must have abused their position, which can include intentional undervaluation.

  • Dishonesty: The actions must be dishonest according to the standards of ordinary, honest people.

  • Intent: The intent must be to make a gain for themselves or another, or to cause a loss to another.

• Examples in Practice:

  • Executors: Undervaluing estate assets, which is explicitly noted as a form of abuse.

  • Directors/Agents: Selling company assets below market value to a connected person.