In 2006 Dean Wilson (the 'Claimant') issued a High Court claim against Barclays Bank PLC (the 'Defendant') for its failure to provide an on-line card payment processing facility (ePDQ) for a new business venture called the Curriculum Vitae Site.com, within the timescale that was promised.

During the court proceedings the Defendant failed to comply with 12 of the courts Orders, refused to disclose documents, refused to attend hearings, and manipulated and deceived the judiciary and the courts staff in order to secure a judgment in its favour.
Numerous complaints were made to the High Court by Dean Wilson regarding the manner in which Barclays Bank and its lawyers conducted themselves during the litigation. 

The High Court has confirmed that complaints regarding the misconduct on the part of a solicitor acting for a Defendant are not to be addressed to the court. Instead, they should be directed to the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

The Solicitors Regulation Authority however has confirmed that complaints regarding a solicitors misconduct during ongoing High Court litigation is in fact a matter for the High Court to deal with. 

In November 2007, Barclays Bank PLC obtained judgment by fraud.

Since the trial in November 2007, numerous attempts have been made by Dean Wilson to identify exactly who is responsible for complaints regarding a solicitors misconduct during ongoing court proceedings, and to also be given an explanation as to why the High Court repeatedly overlooked the misconduct of the bank and its legal representatives during the litigation.

The High Court, The Ministry of Justice, and The House of Lords, have to date all refused to address the issue of why instead of frowning upon such conduct during litigation, the High Court repeatedly overlooked the conduct of Barclays Bank and its lawyers. The Court of Appeal views the matter of the Defendant's misconduct during the court proceedings as 'irrelevant'.

As it stands, a banks legal team can conduct themselves in any way they choose during High Court proceedings without any fear of consequence from either the High Court or an industry regulator. This is seriously concerning, and is a matter for the public's attention.

The documents available for you to view on this website will provide you with an insight in to how Barclays Bank and lawyers from DLA Piper UK LLP and 3 Veralum Buildings, conducted themselves during High Court litigation.
You will also see how a number of barristers from the chambers of 3 Veralum Buildings view the non-compliance of a High Court Order simply as a 'curable defect'.