The English civil justice system is supposed to be one of the best in the world. The documents available on this website show this not to be the case. The reality is that it is flawed, outdated, and naïve.

The barristers and solicitors who practice in the English civil justice system are regulated only by commercial organisations; The Law Society and The Bar Standards Board. Commercial relationships such as the sponsoring of The Law Society’s annual conference by Barclays Bank PLC are a regular event.

This website evolved following a High Court claim that was made against Barclays Bank PLC (the ‘Defendant’) in 2006. The claim related to the banks failure to provide an on-line card payment processing facility (ePDQ) for a new business venture within the timescale that was promised. That business venture was called the Curriculum Vitae Site.

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 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 has confirmed that complaints’ regarding a solicitor’s misconduct during ongoing High Court litigation is 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 to identify exactly who is responsible for complaints regarding a solicitor’s misconduct during ongoing court proceedings. Attempts have also been made to 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 from their industry regulator. It is believed that this is a seriously concerning issue and is a matter for the attention of the public.

The documents available for you to view on this website will provide you with information to see how Barclays Bank and lawyers from DLA Piper UK LLP and 3 Veralum Buildings operated during the High Court litigation.

The lawyers who acted on behalf of Barclays Bank in this claim were:

Charlotte Eborall - 3 Veralum Buildings (London)

Ian Wilson - 3 Veralum Buildings (London). Ian Wilson is the author of the banking chapter in Bullen & Leake

Graham Trace - formerly of DLA Piper UK LLP, now Barclays Bank PLC

Sean Barton - formerly of DLA Piper UK LLP, now Largo Law