10 November 2020 High Court hearing

baliffThe Enforcement Receiver had applied to the High Court for an order of possession.

Pensioners Mr and Ms Beach asked a friend to contact the court to have the hearing adjourned until such time their barrister can examine the 31 July 2020 appeal ruling (which to date, has not been released). It went as follows:

Dear Miss Fareeha Ayyaz,

As you are aware, the High Court are duty-bound to give reasons as to why an appeal has been refused. This is done by ruling or judgement which in this case has not been released by the Criminal Appeal Office.

It is important that Mr and Ms Beach receive the 31 July 2020 High Court of Appeal ruling as it may change the course of these proceedings. For example, it may qualify for the Supreme Court.

The High Court in this case seemed to have set new precedents by making it acceptable that a local authority can:

1.  Lure citizens into breaking the law and then prosecute them. Which is entrapment.
2.  Allow the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to be used as a ‘punishment’.
3.  Allow a local authority to use criminal property and be immune from prosecution.
4.  Allow an Enforcement Receiver to expedite the sale of Mr and Ms Beach's property by reducing its market value by 80%.

This application is that of the Enforcement Receiver where the representing solicitor is using determinations from a lower court to secure a telephone hearing at the High Court in an attempt to circumvent the core issues which are items 1 to 4 above.

Mr and Ms Beach never agreed and will not agree to a hearing of such magnitude to be determined by ‘telephone’

Therefore, in the interest of justice, I kindly ask on behalf of the Mr and Ms Beach that Master Eastman adjourns the 10 November 2020 telephone hearing until such time Mr and Mr Beach and their legal representatives have the time to examine the High Court’s ruling of 31 July 2020 as it may also become a matter for the Serious Fraud Office.

Please acknowledge receipt.

Yours truly

Mr Rick Kordowski
(McKenzie Friend)


Mr Daniel Charles Beach

Anthony Eskander
(Barrister, Church Court Chambers)

Lucy Edwards
(Blake Morgan Solicitors. Representing Enforcement Receiver, Louise Brittain)


Dear all

The emails from all parties were referred to Master Eastman who has directed the following

Mr Kordowski , as a McKenzie friend, has not been granted any right to advocate on behalf of those he is assisting in these proceedings.

The hearing will go ahead

Please notify all parties

Miss Fareeha Ayyaz
Administration Officer
Enforcement and Issues & Enquiries Team, Queen's Bench Division | HMCTS | Royal Courts of Justice | Strand, London | WC2A 2LL


Why are the courts so keen to punish Mr and Ms Beach? If you know why, Contact Us

SHARE THIS PAGE using the icons below:

Mr and Mrs Beach are victims of a brutal bullying and victimisation campaign by local authority, Runnymede Borough Council (RBC).

RBC exaggerated the amount of alleged illegal income Mr and Mrs Beach received in order to cover up the fact that main source of illegal funding was from 'RBC'.

RBC used the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 - a judicial process that cannot be used as a punitive measure - to 'punish' Mr and Mrs Beach for refusing to sell the farm to the council.

RBC for decades paid Mr and Mrs Beach for emergancy accommodation services and then RBC prosecuted Mr and Ms Beach for 'receiving' the payments?

RBC appointed a scrupleless Receiver to purposely transfer property title away from Mr and Ms Beach at a fraction of its value.


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"