CM-01 / Paul Mitchell
Small claims was proposed. What justified multi-track?
Identify the reasons for the 21 November 2024 allocation, the material relied on and the point at which the earlier small-claims proposal was reconsidered. What made small claims, fast track or a narrower determination unsuitable? Explain the weight given to the pleaded remedies, complexity, witnesses, expert evidence and each party’s circumstances.
CM-02 / Paul Mitchell
Where was the assessment of affordability and participation?
What information about Miss E’s means, age and ability to conduct the case was before you? Was her November submission, including the £3,000 solicitor and £2,000 barrister estimates, considered? Identify the assessment and practical directions addressing self-representation, financial disparity and any vulnerability affecting participation.
CM-03 / Paul Mitchell
Which procedural benefits justified the cost?
Explain how the likely benefits of disclosure, expert work, witness evidence and hearing length were weighed against their cost under CPR 1.4(2)(h). What issues could have been narrowed, what cheaper expert route was considered, and why was the claimant’s estimated £35,750 budget proportionate to the case as then understood?
CM-04 / Paul Mitchell
An ADR stay was ordered. What happened when it did not resolve the case?
The November order stayed the case for ADR until 21 January 2025. Identify the subsequent review of settlement, issue narrowing, costs and track suitability. Which further expenditure was avoidable, and what did the court do to prevent it?
CM-05 / Paul Mitchell
The April warning predicted financial harm. Where is the substantive answer?
The 16 April 2025 submission sought reallocation and warned of unaffordable costs. The 17 April order refers to a non-party submission and the need for a proper application. Was that the submission being addressed? Beyond the application procedure, where were its proportionality concerns considered, and what review of the existing directions followed?
CM-06 / Paul Mitchell
Answer the allegation of deliberate hardship and coordinated pressure.
Miss E and Mr J allege that case-management powers were used deliberately to impose financial and procedural hardship, as part of coordinated pressure for financial or property advantage. What decision record, recorded reasons and safeguards answer that allegation? Identify and address any relevant conflict or non-routine communication concerning allocation or management, while protecting privileged advice and unrelated personal information.
CM-07 / HM Courts & Tribunals Service
How did the case reach Mitchell, and where did the warnings go?
Provide the administrative allocation and listing chronology from the Offen proceedings and August notice, through the intervening September Gibb order, to the November CCMC. Identify receipt and judicial referral of the November submission and April warning, and the hearing-record route for obtaining the allocation reasons. This asks HMCTS for administrative records, not to overturn a judicial decision.
CM-08 / Luke Oliver Keith Cornwell · Seldons LLP
What proportionate route did the claimant’s solicitors propose?
Identify the track and directions sought, the reasons and budget presented, and what consideration was given to Miss E’s representation and affordability concerns. Explain the October–November ADR position, including the conditions attached to an earlier stay, and what steps were taken to limit avoidable expense. Distinguish open correspondence from material requiring permission before public disclosure.
Separate policy questions / Proposed, not sent
Compensation and personal accountability for proven abuse.
These questions ask the Ministry of Justice and Parliament to consider changing the law. Neither is accused here of participating in the underlying events, and neither is being asked to overturn Paul Mitchell’s orders. The proposal requires independent findings of deliberate abuse and resulting loss; it does not treat those findings as already made in Miss E’s case.
Paul Mitchell — Designated Civil Judge for Cornwall, Devon and Dorset; Exeter Combined Court Centre · Judiciary leadership directory ↗
Read the reform demand in full · Current law and institutional roles
JR-01 / Reform proposal—not yet sent
Ministry of Justice: Who compensates the person harmed by proven deliberate judicial abuse?
Will the Ministry of Justice propose an accessible, independent compensation route where deliberate judicial abuse and the avoidable loss it caused are independently established? How would the route prevent a financially vulnerable claimant from being priced out of seeking redress, and when should the individual responsible contribute personally?
The reform demand and case context · Full evidence and source notes
JR-02 / Reform proposal—not yet sent
UK Parliament: Will Parliament consider personal financial liability for proven deliberate judicial abuse?
Will Parliament scrutinise judicial immunity and consider legislation permitting personal financial liability where justified after independent adjudication of deliberate judicial abuse and the avoidable loss it caused? What safeguards would distinguish proven abuse from an honest error or an unpopular decision?
The reform demand and case context · Full evidence and source notes