Update 5 July 2026
Note: The below is based on our current understanding. We are currently unable to secure counsel to validate the legal aspects, likely due to the nature of this site and our mission. Quotes are paraphrased, as we are uncertain whether we will ever receive a transcript, given the “technical problems” noted before both hearings so far, the hearing not being added to PCOL, and the lack of court engagement. Brighton Court was sent this article and given five days to comment. They did not reply.
For background:
NatWest Scandal Main Page, (see Full Story Here)
Details of TLT’s other concerning tactics. click here.
14 May 2026 Hearing
Main slide presented in hearing:
We think there is value in creating one-pagers to help reduce obfuscation of the broader situation and themes.
The Judge, District Judge Teresa Hay:
Main points:
- Move to High Court/Other Court: May 14th Judge: “If you aren’t happy with this court, you’ll never be happy with any court.” The justification for this was our claim of broader corruption in the legal system, as evidenced by the Post Office case, etc. We see this as an attempt to block any move to another court. The line of questioning was: Judge: “You think because one judge could be corrupt, then they all are.” We see this as straw-manning our arguments. As seen in the table above, there are many issues with the court, not just one judge.
- The judge mentioned the overriding objective multiple times and in multiple contexts. We feel that the table above shows issues relevant to the overriding objective. The issue is not merely administrative inefficiency. Could it be argued that the table shows issues with core CPR principles — equal footing, full participation, active case management, reliable evidence, and fair process — ceasing to function properly when filings, communications, and procedural records themselves become disputed or unauditable?
- We mentioned not being able to secure counsel and asked whether that concerned the judge. The judge said it was not currently a concern.
- The judge mentioned multi-track, a trial, etc., which seemed positive, but it is our understanding that multi-track litigation is often kept with one court for efficiency, etc. If a move to Another Court/High Court, etc., is not allowed, then surely the situation detailed in the table would just persist.
- The judge seemed concerned about forms being filled out in the correct format, but not about the situation detailed in the table above.
Summary
In the hearing, the judge did not appear persuaded by the broader systemic framing. She did not move the case away from Brighton, did not treat the human-rights point as requiring further investigation, and did not appear highly concerned by the ghost hearing, unopened emails, PCOL issue, or audit-trail concerns at this stage. That does not automatically prove wrongdoing by the judge, but it does show something serious: the court ignoring major procedural concerns, even when the concern was that the process itself may be preventing evidence from being properly recorded, opened, audited, or placed before a judge.
- The issue is not dissatisfaction with an outcome, but loss of confidence in the process. The concern is not simply that we dislike decisions made by the court. The concern is that the procedural record itself appears unreliable or incomplete, which makes it difficult to know whether the judge is seeing the full picture.
- A move to another court should be viewed as a safeguarding measure, not an accusation against every judge. The request is not based on the claim that all judges are corrupt. It is based on the concern that this particular procedural environment may now be too compromised, disputed, or mistrusted to provide confidence in a fair process.
- The court should explain how procedural reliability will be restored. If the case remains in the same court, there should be clear safeguards around filing, email receipt, audit trails, hearing records, document access, and confirmation that evidence has actually been placed before the judge. Without that, the same procedural concerns may continue throughout the litigation.
Why The Court Record Can’t Be Trusted
The 3 November 2025 hearing involved around 60 pages of N244 material just to address the issues.
The 10 February 2026 “ghost hearing” appears on PCOL. The court will not remove it, provide an audit, or open emails questioning it. TLT says they spoke to the court and that the hearing never happened.
The 14 May 2026 hearing was a real two-hour hearing. There were technical issues before, creating what may later become an excuse for not providing a transcript and blocking any appeal. Yet this hearing is not listed on PCOL at all.
PCOL also contradicts itself, as it refers to the hearing earlier in a document posted there:
The Barrister Acting For TLT/NatWest
Natalie Pratt Barrister
…who regards a Government-ordered review into TLT’s conduct, a completely inaccurate PCOL record, thousands of pages of evidence, and police reports as “satellite issues.”
This is deeply concerning. These are not peripheral matters. They go directly to the fairness, reliability, and integrity of the proceedings. If the court record is wrong, if key evidence is being sidelined, if police reports exist in the background, and if TLT’s conduct has been serious enough to trigger a Government-ordered review, then these matters cannot reasonably be dismissed as procedural distractions.
In that context, the phrase “satellite issues” appears to function as a way of shrinking the case back into a narrow procedural frame, while excluding the wider evidence that may explain why the procedural record is disputed in the first place. That is precisely the problem. When the accuracy of PCOL, the conduct of TLT, the existence of police reports, and the volume of supporting evidence all point to wider procedural and evidential failures, they are not satellites orbiting the case. They are part of the case.
Update 2 June 2026
Why it is essential for Brighton County Court to provide details of 10 Feb 2026 Hearing:
Feb 10 PCOL Details (password protected)
Update 5 Jun 2026 – Opened by Radcliffe but not Court:
Sent
Date: Jun 4 2026, at 6:05 am
To: Brighton County, Hearings <hearings.brighton.countycourt@justice.gov.uk>
Cc: npratt@radcliffechambers.com, clerks@radcliffechambers.com, krowley@radcliffechambers.com, akhangure@radcliffechambers.co <akhangure@radcliffechambers.com>, rpearce@radcliffechambers.com, dmohyuddin@radcliffechambers.c <dmohyuddin@radcliffechambers.com>, tdumont@radcliffechambers.com
Dear Court,
I note the following from the screenshots below:
- The hearing listed for 14 May 2026 still does not appear on PCOL.
- The hearing listed for 10 February 2026, which did not take place, still appears on PCOL.
- Emails I sent during March and April 2026 have been opened.
Please confirm what is happening and clarify the current status of the hearing records and my correspondence.
Ms Pratt, please can you confirm, by reply to all, that the hearing on 14 May 2026 did take place and that the current PCOL record appears to be incorrect.
I will also send this email to TLT and add this email to PCOL.
Update 10 June 2026
Sent Brighton Court email – not opened. Also now 4 PCOL entries not actioned.
Update 7 July 2026
A new hearing has been booked at the same court with the same judge, despite multiple requests. The Judge Hay hearing allocates only 20 minutes to explain the situation with the new 150-page N244. This likely isn’t even enough time to explore and investigate why PCOL is completely incorrect. Forcing this through on entirely incorrect data is incredibly reckless, especially in such a complex case.
The hearing agenda cites the ‘overriding objective’ to justify this restrictive 20-minute limit, but this is a gross misapplication of the rules. The overriding objective exists to ensure cases are dealt with justly, not to serve as a procedural rug under which alleged wrongdoing and severe PCOL inaccuracies can be swept. Using such tactics to suppress a 150-page application—especially one entangled with active police reports and a Cabinet Office review—perverts a rule designed for fairness into a shield for misconduct. True proportionality requires establishing the facts, not railroading the hearing just to keep the court diary moving