An SRA-regulated solicitor, who had previously told a court that this humble blogger had attacked him outside a court building leaving him “close to death“, has deployed further “scandalous allegations” in a signed witness statement, the High Court has been told.
Examples of the “baseless assertions and commentary“, said to be in a recent witness statement, include a paranoid suggestion that he is being monitored by “large aerials” on vehicles mounted outside his property “clearly used for parabolic eavesdropping of conversations“.
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.
You can read our extensive coverage of the case so far here.
Please donate to the Cheese Fund to support crowd-funded journalism of the P2P sector.
Reporting by Daniel Cloake.
January 2024 hearing
This hearing concerned an application by the defendants – a peer-to-peer lending platform and 600-or-so investors, to ask the court to order that the claimant, Andrew Milne, provide ‘security for costs’ in the claim.
Details of the claim can be read in paragraphs 5-9 of this judgment.
Broadly speaking if Mr Milne were to lose the overall case then he could become liable to pay the legal costs of the defendants which are understood to now be in excess of £500k.
The court was asked by the defendants to order that Mr Milne provide security (ie assets) for these costs in the event he becomes liable to pay them.
Security for costs applications are governed by part 25 of the civil procedure rules. One of the conditions under which the application can be successful is if the defendants establish that:
“(g) the claimant has taken steps in relation to his assets that would make it difficult to enforce an order for costs against him.“
In written submissions to the court at this hearing, Mr Ritosubhro Haldar, 46, a director and co-founder of the peer-to-peer platform summarised the position:
“What I consider to be clear is that the Claimant has not provided a frank and honest account as to basic matters such as his personal and business addresses, has given misleading and/or inaccurate information about his asset position and, at every step, makes dealing with this claim and the Security for Costs application, unnecessarily and deliberately difficult and therefore more costly for the First Defendant. It is clear to me that enforcement of any adverse costs orders would continue to be extremely difficult.“
These accusations were denied by Mr Milne who reportedly said “I have not taken any “steps” in relation to any “assets” which would make it difficult to enforce an Order for costs against me. Indeed, the true position is that I have gone to great lengths to pay all costs orders which have been made.“
The defendants showed the court a series of letters sent by Mr Milne. The first we’re told was sent on 15th October 2019 and contained:
You threaten to take “enforcement action”. Please explain what assets you are planning to “execute” on, because your threat appears completely hollow and just makes you look ridiculous.
Another letter dated 31st October 2019 apparently said:
We wish to record that if you execute on the Claimant’s bank accounts they are all overdrawn and will remain so until the conclusion of this litigation due to the expense involved and we will produce this letter to the Court and seek that your client pays all the costs of unsuccessful execution.
[The ‘we’ acting in a royal sense there. Technically a nosism as Mr Milne doesn’t hold high office although it was claimed at a court hearing in March 2020 that Milne had posted on an investor forum under the name ‘God of Litigation’ – a claim which wasn’t responded to in court]
The mention of overdrawn bank accounts was said to “illustrate the concern as to the Claimant’s ability to meet adverse costs orders.“
Further evidence deployed in this hearing included accusations that previous cost orders Mr Milne had been told to pay were not made on time and that his “objective is to increase the First Defendant’s legal costs in an attempt to make these proceedings uneconomical to defend“.
As examples of this conduct the court was referred to letters sent by Mr Milne in which he had:
- Issued a pre-action protocol letter for defamation in 2019.
- Threatened to sue two of the first defendants employees in 2022
- Made criminal accusations against the firm and threatened to issue a private prosecution in 2018.
An extract from this remarkable letter dated 27th November 2018 is shown below.
The reference to “my solicitors” at the end means Andrew Milne & Co which, as the name suggests, is wholly owned by Mr Milne.
The court was also taken to adverse findings made against Milne in a 2013 tribunal ruling.
Chairman Mark Martynski, sitting on the London Rent Assessment panel, found that Andrew Milne’s conduct “can be properly described as unreasonable, frivolous or vexatious” having made “very serious allegations – greed, laziness asset stripping, fraud, etc – without any real evidence in support“.
Mr Iain MacDonald, the barrister representing the defendants, told the court “we say Mr Milne is doing exactly the same thing here”.
More “scandalous allegations”
At the last hearing, in October 2023, the court was told Mr Milne had made “scandalous allegations” of attack by blogger which were “palpably untrue”.
Mr MacDonald told the court that “although [Mr Milne] doesn’t repeat the previous allegations he makes fresh allegations“.
An example is given, said to be from Mr Milne’s fifteenth witness statement:
“the First Defendant have (sic) kept me under very close observation at the Mansion. They often send people who sit outside to intimidate me and use powerful cameras to take pictures of the property through the windows. Sometimes, their vehicles have large aerials on the roof or on the back seat which are clearly used for parabolic eavesdropping of conversations, including telephone conversations, inside the Mansion.”
The Mansion
The ‘mansion’ refers to a property in North Wales purchased by Mr Milne for £80,000 in September 2016. The court was told Mr Milne claims that the property is his main residence, although this was disputed by the defendants’ citing its apparent dilapidated condition and lack of residential planning permission.
Barrister Richard Roberts, representing Andrew Milne, said this assertion of close observation was “quite a long way from being paranoid … an agent has been to the property and photographed it“.
Mr MacDonald also referred to a letter which “rather whimsically invites my clients solicitors’ for carol singing” at the mansion. It is not known if they attended or what songs were sung.
There’s a bit of a legal back story behind the Mansion which is a former hotel adjacent to the Abergele & Pensarn railway station.
It was leased to a pre-existing tenant upon Mr Milne’s acquisition of it.
Unfortunately, upon termination of the lease Mr Milne says it was apparently discovered that “the courtyard, ground, first, second and third floors were full of in excess of 20 tonnes of rubbish including, but not limited to: (a) abandoned soft toys and clothes…..”.
The particulars of claim were written by barrister James Hanham and filed at the high court by Mr Milne against the former tenant in November 2021 – who it’s said owed £3,580 in unpaid rent and a staggering £288,800 to rectify problems listed in a so-called ‘schedule of dilapidations’.
The mouseinthecourt has not been able to obtain further details of the claim.
The nightmare for Mr Milne at the mansion did not end there as we understand he also launched legal proceedings against West One Loan Limited, a self-styled provider of specialist mortgages and property finance, whom we understand holds a legal charge over the property.
“a single Ball Room with triple ceiling height“
This string of legal problems arising from the property might be why Mr Milne only owns the one mansion. Paragraph 143 of his witness statement reportedly said:
“I believe that the real reason that the First Defendant has kept me under very close observation, apart from to intimidate me, is that they believe that I have more than one Mansion and, if they follow me around long enough, I will lead them to a series of fine stone built Mansions, each with a Ball Room with triple ceiling height.
They presumably imagine that I own several such properties and move between my Mansions on a whim.
I can inform the Court that I do not own any other Mansions and I am content with having a single Ball Room with triple ceiling height.“
Well, wouldn’t we all!
Declining to respond to what were described as “further false and scandalous allegations” Mr Haldar submitted to the court that he “will not seek to engage further with the baseless assertions and commentary contained [within Mr Milne’s witness statement]” having previously said “it contains plainly irrelevant material“.
Commercial litigant
The court was told that Mr Milne is carrying out “litigation as a business and therefore it is both just and appropriate to require him to provide security for costs.”
The defendants say they understand Mr Milne “has litigated against or threatened to litigate against at least seven businesses that were lending businesses and/or that had a lending element to their business“.
Mr MacDonald averred that a “party indulging in litigation” risks the cost of both counsel and costs if they lose. He said the “court is entitled to raise an eyebrow as to how this is being funded”.
The court was told about an article in The Times from October 2023, in which a high court claim filed on behalf of Mr Milne by a leading (and presumably expensive) barrister is referenced.
Referring to the claim as “speculative litigation” Mr MacDonald averred that “the costs risk are very clear” even if the barrister was working for under his market value.
The defendants said in written submissions “The Claimant’s apparent ability to fund such litigation (and his other claims) indicate to me that the Claimant is living a lifestyle that his assets (at least those of which the First Defendant is aware) plainly do not match“
In response Mr Milne reportedly said “the comments made are completely untrue. I am not conducting any sort of “business” and I certainly do not recognise the number of “seven”.“
A replacement number was not proffered to the court.
Anything else to Hyde?
The court was also told Mr Milne had made an “extremely substantial profit” from a plot of land purchased in Hyde, Manchester in October 2020.
The circumstances by which Mr Milne came to acquire this property was read out to the court from his witness statement:
“I purchased some land in South Manchester at public auction for £2,250. I had not seen the land before buying it. I had spoken to the auctioneer on the telephone and he had told me that it was a very beautiful property with woods with plentiful game in the trees and a little river with fish jumping. Due to the expense of these proceedings, I only had about £2,500 available within my overdraft limit and so I left a bid of £2,500. I noticed a similar property of similar size had recently sold at auction for £125,000 and so I was extremely surprised when I was advised that I was the successful buyer at £2,250“
Mr MacDonald asked the court “is that the behaviour of someone who is down to their last £2250?“. He added there was a “stark contrast between Mr Milne saying he has no assets and his conduct in pursuing this litigation, and at least two speculative ventures“.
The first of these ventures was said to be Mr Milne seemingly being forced to litigate against one of the neighbouring properties to his land in Hyde after apparently discovering that “50 tonnes or more of loose earth … [were] collapsing onto [Mr Milne’s] property“.
That High Court claim was filed 5 months after his purchase of the land at auction. The claim did result in a hearing at the High Court before judge Deputy Master Hansen in October 2021.
“an attempt to bully the defendants and neighbours“
It was said in written pleadings in the Hyde claim by Mr Milne that the “correct remedy…is to remove the rear garden and then underpin to a depth of at least 60 feet“.
This was described in court by Mr Sam Keeling-Roberts, on behalf of the Hyde defendants, as a “very expensive remedy against the defendants, and could well be construed as an attempt to bully the defendants and neighbours“. This assertion was “soundly rejected” by Ms Camilla Chorfi, on behalf of Mr Milne.
The defendants in this hearing pointed to land transfers registered since then in connection with the land in Hyde. It was said that the neighbouring property owners have since purchased parts of the land at a significant uplift, presumably as a way to settle the claim. ”A profit of nearly £200,000” was said to have been made by Mr Milne.
In response to this Mr Milne asserted he was being a “good neighbour” by selling parts of the property to the neighbours as a significant discount. One portion of the land was said to be worth £4m, but Milne had sold it for £60k.
Palm Oil
The other venture was said to be the underwriting of £1.2m of shares in Equatorial Palm Oil in 2011. Mr Roberts told the court that “this isn’t him spending £1.2m…but putting himself to significant risk [by underwriting the share purchase], if no one buys the shares he’s on the hook“.
Mr Milne said he had been misled in this venture, something he had only discovered after the investment.
Mr MacDonald replied asking “if he is good for £1.2m then where is it?” adding it “beggars belief” that he would have been asked to participate in the deal without verification of the £1.2m being made available.
The other January hearing
This wasn’t the only court proceedings that Mr Milne was involved with in January. It was this site which exclusively reported on a judgment hand down at the Wrexham County Court held a few days after this one.
See our report in Solicitor sent “disgraceful and inexcusable” communications in £40k property dispute, court finds
This judgment not only revealed adverse comments made by the judge about Mr Milne, including that “I do not consider him to be an honest or credible man“, but also the existence of a property in North Wales that had apparently not been disclosed in this litigation.
The defendants in this case made further submissions in writing on this point, prompting a reply from Mr Milne.
In written submissions Milne said:
“The First Defendant is well aware that I own the freehold of [the property in North Wales] because their representatives have often followed me there from my home which is a ten minute drive away. On one occasion, when I was working as a labourer on the first floor, a representative of the First Defendant climbed up a ladder outside and took lots of photographs of me working.“
Before adding:
“I believe that the First Defendant have also closely co-ordinated with the long leaseholders of the property to encourage them to sue me.“
No evidence was provided to the court supporting these assertions.
The February hearing
Originally scheduled for January, but delayed due to the extra submissions, procedural Judge Master James Brightwell handed down his judgment on the application on Friday afternoon.
In a 56 minute extempore judgment Master Brightwell began by setting out the background to the claim and the application.
It was explained that Mr Milne’s “very long” witness statement had been re-filed “with certain allegations about a non-party removed“. This referred to the “palpably untrue” claim that the mouseinthecourt had attacked him outside court in 2020.
The judge said he considered “that a good part of the claimants correspondence and evidence is written in a tone which has the effect of causing antagonism and of not always addressing the points made“. The earlier mentioned examples of the ball room and the carol singing were given.
The judge said explanations provided by Mr Milne about the Hyde property and the Palm Oil venture “do seem in some respects farfetched… In particular it would seem odd if he agreed to sell a property worth £4m for £60k” and that it would have been “improbable that a practicing solicitor would enter into an agreement [with Palm Oil] in which he underwrote a subscription of shares without being required to provide any evidence of his ability to do so“.
In determining the application the judge referred to a two-step process – firstly were there undisclosed assets, and if so had they been “placed out of reach“.
“I would have to be satisfied that the claimant has taken steps to make it more difficult to enforce, not steps that might do. I’m not concerned either about the risk of what might happen in the future but what has happened in the past“.
“When I look at all of the points raised by the defendants and the evidence given by the claimant … I do not reach the view that the most plausible explanation is that the claimant has [taken steps to make his assets difficult to enforce against]“
It was at this point, sporting a large grin, Mr Milne gave a thumbs up to the camera in this hearing being held over video conferencing software. It is a contempt of court to take screenshots.
The judge concluded: “In all those circumstances the jurisdictional gateway is not satisfied … I will accordingly dismiss the application“
The parties were invited to make further submissions in writing following this hearing. It is anticipated that Mr Milne will ask for payment of his costs. The defendants may choose to ask for permission to appeal.
The underlying claims in this case are expected to be decided in a four-day-trial scheduled to take place in-person between 21st October 2024 and the 28th February 2025.
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 
