(this article is part of NatWest Group Scandal, see more details here).
12 May 2026
Note: There are two versions of the article, one with pictures blurred and password protected one with not blurred.
Using tactics that rely on producing dozens of misstatements, so that any hearing is consumed by the need to correct them, is deeply wrong. It obstructs proper scrutiny, wastes time, and shifts attention away from the substantive issues that should be addressed.
- Procedural fairness: It prevents the hearing from dealing with the real issues fairly.
- Overriding objective: It wastes time and costs, obstructing proportionate case management.
- Duty not to mislead: Repeated misstatements may breach duties of honesty, candour, and accuracy.
Example Below
Here is the defence sent to the court:
Here is TLT saying defence not sent to court and also saying that N244 not sent in paper form or paid for:
also here is the payment:
So we have the situation where:
- TLT makes the claim in court that I didn’t pay for N244 on Nov 3rd, 2025.I say that I did and they don’t challenge. Judge accepts paid but says we can’t discuss it now.
- Judge said in Nov 3rd, 2026 hearing – “don’t send us the defence”. It was sent anyway.
- TLT repeats the claim again now and also adds new statement that paper version wasn’t filed.
- When the reality is: defence sent to court, N244 paid for, N244 hand delivered in paper form.
11 May N244
Anticipating that TLT/Court will also say the latest N244 hasn’t been posted:
Will the court try to take payment for the new N244 or will something else happen?
This article has been sent to Kam O’Neill and to the Court here:
To: Kam O’Neill <kam.o’neill@tlt.com>
Sent Tuesday, 12 May 2026 at 05:00:08 BST
Subject: Latest Article on your statements
Next Steps
Will TLT /Court accept these facts? or pretend they never read them?
Also, the 10 February 2026 hearing is still showing on PCOL, despite TLT saying it did not happen and the court refusing to open or engage with emails about it.
Was this a way of creating a ghost record of a hearing at which the N244 application could not be heard, while also creating a false paper trail to obscure the fact that the actual second hearing took place six months after the first hearing, rather than within the roughly three-month timeframe that appears to have been normal during that period?
I will update the Police Report next week on these topics.