SRA-regulated solicitor Andrew Milne claimed in a signed witness statement that not only did the defendants in a high court case he’s personally pursuing arrange for him to be attacked and that he “nearly died” — but that it was this humble blogger that did it!
In 2016, Mr Andrew Jonathan Milne, described in court papers as “an experienced practising solicitor in the City of London”, took out a series of crowd funded loans facilitated by the peer-to-peer lender Open Access Finance Ltd.
In 2019 he launched a High Court claim against the platform (and subsequently the 600-or-so investors) alleging, among other things, various technical breaches of the Consumer Credit act and the Financial Services & Markets act.
The mouseinthecourt has been covering this case for a while and has published a number of articles about it.
One such hearing we attended was in March 2020 at the home of the business and property courts in London.
At a previous hearing the court had heard about an “aggressive and hectoring” letter which had been sent by the claimant Mr Milne to the defendants.
This letter had been described by procedural judge Chief Master Marsh in the following way:
It is a letter which has caused me very real concern. The letter is expressed in terms which are both aggressive and hectoring.
The approach in the letter clearly suggests that Mr Milne’s objective is to create as much difficulty as possible for the defendant, with a view to destroying it. He says so in terms.
In addition, if that were not enough, he raises the spectre of individual lenders being the subject of proceedings which might lead to their bankruptcy.
After the judgment was handed down on 12th March the mouseinthecourt considered it to be an entirely legitimate journalistic endeavour to ask Mr Milne about the letter, on camera, outside the Rolls Building after the hearing.
The video was put on YouTube. Do have a butchers, it’s only 39 seconds long.
The transcript reads as follows:
Daniel Cloake: Hello Mr Milne
Andrew Milne: Hi
Daniel Cloake: You seem very keen to speak to lenders, have you got any comments for them?
Andrew Milne: Who are you?
Daniel Cloake: I’m an observer
Chief Master Marsh described an aggressive and hectoring letter you wrote to him that caused him very real concern. Is your approach to create as much difficulty for Open Access Finance, with a view to destroying it?
…
Is your ambition to make the lenders bankrupt?
During this exchange Mr Milne gets into a waiting taxi and is driven off.
Three and a half years roll past. It’s October 4th 2023 and I’m remotely attending another hearing in this matter before procedural judge Master James Brightwell. (Among other things a trial window is set.)
Mr Iain MacDonald, the barrister representing the defendants, said there were problems with a 39-page witness statement Mr Milne had deployed for the hearing citing “its lateness, its length and its content“.
He submitted that “the Court must, in my respectful submission, treat [the witness statement] with a very great deal of caution“
“Nearly died in the attack“
The courts attention was drawn to “the type of scandalous allegations that Mr Milne sets out in his paragraph seven” said Mr MacDonald explaining “towards the end of that page [Milne] makes the allegation that he was attacked by the first defendant’s representative outside court on 12th March 2020 immediately after the hearing before Mr Justice Fancourt and nearly died in the attack.“
We were told that Mr Milne “goes on to allege that the first defendant arranged for the attack to be filmed and posted a video of the attack on the internet to try to deter the very large number of people who they are in dispute with, and owe money to, from attempting to take them to court.“
“Dead in the gutter outside the court“
Mr MacDonald said that the statement went “on to say in the final sentence that, my client’s “two directors have drawn attention to the video of their attack on me outside court to other customers that they owe money to”, and stated, “The next person that takes them to court will be dead in the gutter outside the court”.“
“Now Judge those are extraordinary allegations“.
Mr MacDonald said in no uncertain terms that “the video does not show an attack. It does not show anybody who is near death. It shows Mr Milne with somebody asking him questions outside the Rolls Building and then him getting into a taxi and leaving.“
“The video simply provides no evidence to support the allegations that Mr Milne makes. Very, very serious allegations going as far as to suggest that my client’s directors have made death threats to other potential litigants.“
Barrister Richard Roberts, representing the former Clifford Chance solicitor Andrew Milne, confirmed this analysis – “I think it shows as my learned friend says someone approaching Mr Milne trying to ask him some questions as he gets into a taxi outside court. It doesn’t show that he nearly died“.
Judge Master Brightwell asked “Is he physically attacked? Is he either assaulted or threatened with physical assault in the video?“
“No” confirmed Mr Roberts who later added “I didn’t hear any such physical attack” and “I don’t say that one can hear any physical threat“.
The judge was unable to view the video, despite wanting to, due to a restriction on watching YouTube using court equipment.
Resisting the suggestion that the entire witness statement should not be relied upon by the court because of the complaint that “I think as my learned friend put them that it’s scandalous, late, discursive, and unhelpful” Roberts averred that “there is a small part, a relatively small part, a proportion of the witness statement which is taken up with the complaint that my learned friend has brought to your attention about what happened outside court.“
“Are you relying on that [section of the statement] in any way?” asked the judge.
“No” replied Mr Roberts.
“So are you happy for me to deem that to be sort of struck out of the statement?“
“Yes“
MacDonald replied to this concession saying “a practicing solicitor, even a semi-retired practicing solicitor, ought to know better“.
Ultimately the application under which the witness statement had been deployed was adjourned.
In a short judgment Master Brightwell considered “the substance of the witness statement and the fact that it contains allegations which are scandalous and on which the claimant does not actually seek to rely in response to the application, this only provides another reason why the application ought to be adjourned.“
In a perhaps slightly telling remark the judge asked Mr Roberts:
“I am assuming, I know I cannot require you to answer this as it would go to matters that are privileged. But I am assuming you did not have a hand in, well the final drafting of that witness statement?“
Roberts began replying “I don’t know if that would be — privileged—” but was spoken over by Master Brightwell who said “but I would, perhaps for Mr Milne’s benefit, make the comment that it might be helpful if you did.“
“I’m sure that’s been noted, thank you” came the reply.
So what exactly was written in the witness statement?
I can’t tell you – despite extensive reference to the document in the first 30 minutes of the hearing, and seemingly containing accusations against me personally, non-parties are not entitled to inspect a copy during this pre-trial phase.
The court refused to consider an e-mail that I sent during the hearing as a valid application instead insisting that if I wished to see a copy that I should file an application notice — at a cost of £275 — to enable the court to even consider my request.
As I said in written submissions:
“Were this court not to accept a written request via e-mail as a valid application under the open justice principle this would, in my respectful submission, have a chilling effect on the ability of the public, which includes the press, to make contemporaneous applications for documents referred to in open court. The existence and importance of such documents only becoming apparent at the time they are mentioned in open court.“
I stand by this comment.
The next hearing in this matter, an application for security for costs, is scheduled to take place in January 2024.
We approached Mr Milne, via his solicitors Milne & Co, for comment prior to the publication of this article. We did not receive a response.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES
BUSINESS LIST (ChD)
Case No: FS-2019-000004
(1) ANDREW JONATHAN MILNE
-v-
(1) OPEN ACCESS FINANCE LIMITED
(2) MR MAREK SZYMANSKI as representative of those lenders who lent to the Claimant under the loans listed in Annex A to the Particulars of Claim
Mouse in the Court 
One thought on “Solicitor made “scandalous allegations” of attack by blogger which were “palpably untrue”, court told”