Louise Brittain – The Receiver who evicted the Beach family and sold Padd Farm to her friends at less than half market value GETS AN AWARD!


Insolvency Professional of the Year: Louise Brittain

How can this be possible?
Link to article HERE


Scrupleless Receiver from Wilkins Kennedy Llp and Azets Holdings SCAMS Land Developer so property can be sold to her friends at less than HALF PRICE

Receiver Louise Brittain (pictured) was granted an Order to transfer property to ANYONE of her choice. 

The Receiver falsely promised TRM Land a saving of millions of pounds if the Land Developers 'changed sides' and aligned themselves with the Receiver. 

We now know that with TRM Land's permission, the Receiver has sold Padd Farm to HER FRIENDS who are planning to develop the land at Padd Farm themselves.

The Order was appealed at the High Court as it CHEATS both the Land Developer and Mr and Ms Beach. Below are the Grounds.


In accordance with Section 65 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. This is an application to appeal the making of the order by Guildford Crown Court on 18th July 2019 and a stay of enforcement action.

The order being appealed grants the Receiver (Louise Brittain from Wilkins Kennedy) to sell property know as Padd Farm (Title Numbers: SY472091 and SY96658) to an unnamed buyer along with the benefits of a Land Registry recorded Option Agreement dated 7 July 2016 (Varied on 25 January 2018).

The Option Agreement pays the unnamed buyer £9,500,000.00 upon successful planning permission - expected to be at the end of 2019. Plus, an additional overage payment of 82.5% of 20 acres when the property is further developed at any time durring the next 125 years.


  • The Receiver is duty bound to circulate the availability of the property (with Option Agreement investment opportunity) and obtain the best price possible. However, it is evident from the 18 July 2019 order alone that the Receiver has no intention to do so and in addition, the terms of the order have been engineered to ‘hide’ the identity of the pre-determined purchaser until such time the sale has been completed. For example:
  • How would the Receiver know to include in the order a condition that the highest tender would want to remain anonymous - if it were not pre-determined?
  • How would the Receiver know to include in the order a condition that the highest tender’s conveyancing solicitors would be able to digest, exchange and complete a sale of this magnitude and complexity within 13 days- if it were not pre-determined?
  • On the 14thday, the day after completion, the identity of the purchaser will be announced and who will go on to receive £9,500,000.00 in around 3 months’ time and a further 82.5% of 20 acres if the land is further developed.
  • To be clear. The Receiver intends to sell the Padd Farm (together with Option Agreement benefits) for £1.95m to a pre-determined purchaser without any type of external marketing or investment tendering. 
  • If this matter is left unchecked, the property will be sold by the Receiver for 20% of its value and just 6% of its potential value. 
  • Hiding the identity of the buyer before the property is sold would prevent Mr and Ms Beach and the judicial system to make a challenge if for example the anonymous purchaser transpires to be contentious such as ‘Runnymede Borough Council’ who are the prosecuting authority in this case.
  • We put it to the court that this is an abuse of process by an ‘officer of the court’ and a breach of Article 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights.


  • The price agreed between the Receiver and the ‘anonymous purchaser’, according to papers submitted at the hearing, is conveniently equal to the Mr and Ms Beach’s total current financial liabilities. Which if the Receiver is successful, would leave the Beach family without their home of nearly 30 years. Making the Beach family homeless and penniless.
  • The order of 18 July 2019 was not drafted by the court but by the barristers ‘after’ the hearing where it was signed by HHJ Moss - a week later. Mr and Ms Beach were not given the opportunity to challenge the order in any way whatsoever.
  • The terms of the order have been engineered so that Mr and Ms Beach’s estate, including the contractual £9.5m plus a further £20m overage payment, can be sold beforedisclosing the identity of the purchaser.
  • Item 3 of the 18 July 2019 order:

3 (b): The Receiver has 14 days to confirm the identity of the purchaser.


3 (d): The Receiver will provide the contract of sale 7 days prior to Exchange with certain clauses edited or hidden. (I.e. the identity of the purchaser hidden).

3 (f): The Receiver shall confirm Exchange of contract within 3 days.

3 (g): The Receiver shall confirm Completion within 3 days.

On the 14th day (the day after Completion) the identity of the purchaser will be confirmed. In any event, it will be recorded at the Land Registry at this stage.

  • The Receiver is duty-bound to provide extensive marketing and investment tendering in order to realise as much as possible from property Padd Farm and the accompanying Option Agreement. In which case, how would the Receiver know that the highest tender would want to stay anonymous and their conveyancing solicitors would be able to digest the contract, exchange and complete the sale in just 13 days?
  • Why make the purchaser anonymous at all? A highly unusual clause for a court order or any other type of sales agreement for that matter. The answer is the buyer has already been found some time ago and no real marketing will take place. Which in itself is an abuse of process by an ‘officer of the court’ and in addition, by failing to exercise care to avoid preventable loss is a breach of duty by the Receiver. 
  • During the 18 July 2019 hearing. Mr Beach stated to HHJ Moss that he disagreed with the Receiver’s valuation of £1.9m. The value of the estate is closer to its potential value of £9.4m where proof of funds have been supplied and ringfenced – and due to be released at the end of this year. Plus, a further £20m by way of an overage indenture which is payable when the land is further developed.
  • All parties in this matter were aware that Mr and Ms Beach are litigants in person. No valuations were served by the Receiver to justify her claim that the property was worth just £1.9m - despite an almost immediate return of £9.4m plus an additional £20m in the course of time by way of the registered Option Agreementwhich would be transferred to the new owner.
  • In fact, not even a copy of the court bundle was served. However, it was noticed that the presiding judge was shown a valuation of Padd Farm dated 12 March 2017 of £1.65m. The exact same property valuation that was commissioned by the prosecuting authority for the original confiscation hearing and which was wronglyused to determine the total ‘illegal benefit’ that resulted in a manifestly excessive confiscation amount. A reminder to the court that the original confiscation hearing was held with JUST the prosecuting authority present.
  • The Receivers duty is not delegable and in failing to obtain recent and appropriate valuations is a further breach of the Receiver’s duty.
  • It follows that where a Receiver fails to carry out its duties with due diligence, the Receiver will become personally liable and can be held to account for negligence.
  • Ultimately, the Receiver cannot rely on a two-year-old property valuation obtained by another party and trust hearsay from her friendly agent to ascertain the value of an asset such as Padd Farm. Then stick to a low offer along these lines. An offer received almost year ago from an undisclosed source which is documented and evidenced in the Receiver’s written reports.
  • To help the Court of Appeal to come to a determination, case files will be provided. Such as Glatt v. Sinclairwhere the Court of Appeal held that the best price reasonably attainable at the time of the sale is the relevant question. 
  • Why would a Receiver go to so much trouble to hide the identity of the purchaser?
  • Apart from Central London. Property and land prices in 'Virginia Water 'are the most expensive in the UK. Padd Farm is a 32-acre estate in the ward of 'Virginia Water’.
  • In the May 2018 Runnymede Borough Council’s Planning Policy, published by Arup on page 34 it states that “The site [Padd Farm / Hurst Lane] has been assessed as having the potential to provide 800 dwellings”.
  • Direction 1 of the 18 July 2019 orders the Receiver a period of at least 6 weeks to market the property and receive tenders.
  • The Receiver along with Head of Law at RBC have been reminded that Mr and Ms Beach expect to see evidence of marketing.To date, no response has been received.
  • In order for Mr and Ms Beach to avoid a monthly security fee of £19,800. Eldest son, Danial William Beach, agreed with the Receiver that he reside at Padd Farm to provide security to the estate. 
  • Evidence that the Receiver has no intention to comply with the marketing directions and is selling to a pre-determined buyer which was agreed some time ago is by way of an eviction notice dated 31 July 2019 (Exhibit DCB-B). Less than 2 weeks into a marketing campaign - The Receiver is disregarding the security cost implications and demanding that the property is vacated by 1st September 2019 or on a date shortly after.
  • We put it to the court that the Receiver is aware that justice in this matter is due to be corrected by the High Court of Appeal. Which will undoubtedly affect the Receivers pre-arranged agreements and considerable fees. Therefore, the Receiver is attempting to conclude matters before High Court judges return from their annual holidays.


  • It has been established in law that when realising assets, the Receivers duties are not just to the court and creditors but also to other parties with an interest in the equity of redemption and as such the Receiver must act in good faith, manage the property with due diligence and to take reasonable steps to obtain proper prices for assets. The Receiver in this case has failed to do so.
  • Exhibit DCB-A is a press article in relation to Receiver, Louise Brittain, where she was previously accused by an MP who demanded that Louise Brittain must "never be appointed as liquidator again" because her "connivance"and "intimidatory behaviour".
  • To prevent a further injustice and having already been wrongly imprisoned in this matter. Mr and Ms Beach ask for this appeal application to be granted and in the interests of justice kindly ask the court or the Registrar to stay enforcement action until the appeal hearing with immediate effect.


This appeal was refused on 31 July 2020. The courts are duty bound to give reasons why an appeal was refused. But the High Court have NOT done so!


Exhibit DCB-B:

Exibit DCB B Eviction Letter


Exhibit DCB-A:

Exhibit DCB A 1

Exhibit DCB A 2

Exhibit DCB A 3

Exhibit DCB A 4

Exhibit DCB A 5


SHARE THIS PAGE using the icons below:


One of the directors at Abbey Forwarding suffered a mental breakdown, brought about "out of despair of what had happened" and the "overwhelming sense of injustice"

- Abbey Forwarding Story

- MP demands Louise Brittain must "never be appointed as liquidator"