Page 1 of 3

Hereford Magistrates Court 17th Oct, 2011

PostPosted: Sat Oct 22, 2011 8:06 pm
by treeman
This is a brief overview of the recent showdown at Hereford Magistrates between Guy of the Taylor Family and the bloodsucking parasitic legal system.
It has been written by our founder Veronica of the Chapman Family, and includes an audio footage of the court proceedings.
Enjoy :clap: :clap: :clap: :cheer:

Hereford Magistrates Court – 17th October, 2011

This was a continuation of the previous adjournments – with added flavourings.

Guy had lodged two complaints:

1. Against Herefordshire Council for taking him all the way to potential bankruptcy – be charging him on land he did not own – and then withdrawing at the very last minute … but leaving behind a trail of shit comprising Solicitor’s costs to be paid, and the claim by Michael Horne/Tim Robinson. Guy was charging the Council with “irregular distress”

2. Against County Court Judge Nadeem Khan for rubber-stamping everything that led up to the Bankruptcy Petition, even when having been told that the charge was a fraudulent demand.

As usual, the Court tried to dump a curved ball at the outset. British Gas suddenly appeared on the scene, talking about an unpaid Electricity Bill for Bodenham Manor.

The problem with this Electricity Bill was that is was based on Business Rates, on the assumption that business was still being conducted at Bodenham Manor.

Unfortunately (for British Gas) no ‘business’ has been carried on at Bodenham since 2005. Consequently only a Domestic Rate Tariff is applicable on those apartments that remain inhabited.

When appraised of this … prior to the actual Court Hearing … British Gas withdrew their application, and realised that they actually owed Guy THOUSANDS … because (until recently) he’s been paying Business Rate Tariffs (since 2005).

So, after that matter had been cleared up (and the British Gas Representative went on his way – tail between legs) we actually got called into the Court.

It was a new Judge. One we had not seen before (Judge Cadbury).

We recorded the whole thing on a Dictaphone. At the moment this is only available in full – as a WAV File – via

I intend – as soon as possible - to shorten it to the salient points, and to explain what happened.

As a foretaste we can state that:

1. Judge Cadbury had spent the previous weekend reading everything (he actually says so), and was pretty conversant with the whole situation. For this reason he was able to cut the Hereford Council’s Barrister to shreds at various times (much to our delight, of course!). (There is a delicious moment where she waffles & drones on … for what seems like ages … and Judge Cadbury says “Yes … but in the end, he [Guy] was right, and you were wrong … is that not so?”. She is unable to disagree).
2. There are a number of ‘tasty bits’, which cause one’s mouth to water. Not least of which when Cadbury – having heard the quotation from Halsbury’s Laws of England … to the effect that his Court – and all the others are entirely UNLAWFUL … when he says “Is that in Halbury’s?”. Guy says “Yes”, and Cadbury responds “I can see that throwing up a few problems!”. (Surely the masterful understatement of the century?).
3. One of the important bits is when (remember Cadbury has read up on the entire situation, and knows what has happened) he admits “This is probably all due to the crossed-wires that occurred when the Courts started to see Freemen-on-the-Land. And the Courts did not know how to react. And are slowly coming to terms with Freemen”. (That’s paraphrasing, not a direct quote … but that’s more-or-less what he said).
4. Another tasty bit is when he tells Guy that he is going to refuse Guy’s application to have Nadeem Khan summonsed. It has been explained to Cadbury that, if he refuses to ‘do his duty’, then he [Cadbury] leaves himself open to prosecution. He says “I may go to prison for this, but I’m going to have to refuse this application … at this time. However, I do understand that – at a different time – you [Guy] may very well be right. I feel you should appeal my decision, because it would make quite a good Test Case”. (Once again, paraphrasing, listen to it yourself … at the end).
Breathtaking stuff. And there were other bits, which I’ll remember when I analyse the recording properly. (It’s very long … nearly 2 hours, including the 20-minute ‘retirement’ in between).

The matters dealt with were (in order):

A. The so-called ‘motoring offence’. Result: Adjournment due to the fact that the Witness Statement starts: “On the 11th January, 2012 …”. There is a delicious moment when Cadbury reads this out, and says “Oh … that’s a good start!”. The Police Constable who wrote that statement will now have to appear in person. Guy is looking forward – with considerable glee – to this. (We were told, by the Inspector, that this Constable’s hair started falling out when Guy sent him a bill for £1,000 for the original arrest!)
B. The failed Bankruptcy Petition .vs. Guy’s application for Irregular Distress. Guy says that – since the Council withdrew at the last moment, Guy is prepared to withdraw his petition. Result: All costs ‘mirrored’ … so no-one pays anyone anything (But Note: GUY HAS A LIEN ON THE BARRISTER!). There is quite a delicious moment when the Barrister has waffled on about her costs, and how Guy wasn’t ‘distressed’ because they didn’t send Bailiffs … just went straight for bankruptcy (in her little world that, presumably, doesn’t count as distressful) and Cadbury turns to Guy and says “Well, Guy, you must have had costs, as well, surely …”
C. The Old Railway Sidings (the bit Guy still owns): Result: The Council told to re-value & re-bill. The Barrister’s costs were dismissed.
D. Bodenham Manor Restaurant … which hasn’t been a restaurant for years, and for which the Council are claiming Business Rates. Result: Subject to Appeal on actual Rateable Value (domestic … affectively just floor space).
E. Judge Cadbury was given chapter & verse on why this Court – and ALL Administrative Courts – carry no authority/force of Law. He didn’t really argue, except to say that he considered his Oath of Office entitled him to BOTH Common Law & Statute jurisdiction (BUT HE ADMITTED HE MIGHT BE WRONG!). Interestingly, Cadbury did ‘twig’ that – having declared the Court invalid, Guy then attempted to utilise it. Cadbury said “It seems you are happy to consider this Court lawful, when it suits you”. This was, of course, very astute, and very true. Guy’s response was equally valid, astute, and true: “You, yourselves, utilise this Court when it suits you, and then dip straight into Common Law when it suits you – by threatening Contempt of Court – which is a Common Law misdemeanour. So I’m only doing what you do!”. Judge Cadbury had no answer to that, and seemed content to carry on with the situation being described thereafter as ‘hybrid’.
During this hearing, Cadbury called Guy “Guy” … never once calling him “Mr. Taylor” (this Judge had obviously been prepped by Roger Harris, the Clerk of the Court!).

During the Hearing, Guy swigged from a bottle of Coca-Cola, and no-one said a word.

During the Hearing, the Barrister continually tried to bring up/mention the “Common Law Liens” … hoping (one presumes) to get a reaction from the Judge. (Guy has one against her, personally). Not once did the Judge react in the matter of the Liens. He treated it totally matter-of-fact. Presumably she was trying to prod Judge Cadbury to say that Guy’s Lien against her carries no force in Law (she obviously doesn’t know). To her obvious disappointment, he didn’t say a word.

[My own Lien against the psychopathic Bailiff in East Sussex has been passed in front of at least one Judge … who – it appears – also didn’t say a word. At the time of writing, I’ve received nothing back at all … specifically no ‘reprimand’, or whatever. In another case, Guy has a Lien against the Solicitor Michael Horne. Horne refers to it in his so-called “Witness Statement” when applying for an Injunction against Guy. Once again, the obvious effort was to encourage the Judge to dismiss the Lien. Unfortunately for Horne, the Judge in that case makes absolutely no mention of the Lien. If we get the impression “Judges just don’t want to know” I think we might have some justification. After all, the Liens do spell out precisely why “a Judge just wouldn’t want to know” … so it’s no secret].

There’s lots more.

Upon returning home, I found some letters from BT & Virgin (binned immediately) and a couple of Bank Statements PLUS a card from the Local Council informing me that I face CRIMINAL PROSECUTION if I don't fill out the Electoral Roll Form for 2011.

I was disturbed by a LOUD knock on the door at about 10:30 am. I opened it, and the 'face' started up with "I'm from Hounslow Council ..." so I said "Oh! Yes! I have a letter for you ... just a minute!" ... and closed the door. Then I quickly printed off what follows below, opened the door and gave it to him, saying "Come back when you've signed it", and shut the door. (The Council will have to re-print all their cards, I think)

Here’s what I said:

Saturday, 22 October 2011.
Dear Sirs,

Please ensure that whoever subsequently calls has filled out the enclosed Statement of Truth, by inserting their Name at the top (block capitals), and signing and dating it at the bottom.

Make sure they bring this Statement with them, signed as stated, as I will require a certified copy. Such an act will comprise a Tort against me, and I will therefore also require a Service Address for the Signee, since I will be taking out a Private Prosecution or Common Law Commercial Lien against them. In this situation I will be the corpus delecti, the crime will be one of ‘deception’ and ‘issuance of UNLAWFUL threats’ (Common Assault), and the signed Statement of Truth will comprise the evidence.

On the other hand, if you can’t even get that far (outside a Court), how far do you think you would get inside a Court?

Signed and sealed without ill-will, frivolity or vexation,

The Peaceful Inhabitant at the above-mentioned dwelling.
Without any admission of any liability whatsoever, and with all Natural, Indefeasible Rights reserved, including all Media Rights.

PS It is not a good idea to bandy about threats of “criminal prosecutions” without actually knowing what the word “criminal” means, in Law. It just makes you look stupid.

Statement of Truth

I do hereby state, under penalty of perjury and full commercial liability:

1. THAT I am competent to state the matters herein and do take Oath as follows;
2. THAT the matters stated herein are true, certain, and correct;
3. THAT I have warned the Inhabitant at the dwelling known as: * * * * * * * *

that they face criminal prosecution if they fail to provide the required information for the Electoral Roll year 2011;
4. THAT I can quote the Law-of-the-Land (the Common Law) that obliges said Inhabitant to intercourse between Them Self and My Self (including the entity I represent);
5. THAT I can prove the violation (specifically “failure to provide information”) is, indeed, a violation of the Common Law, and is indeed, a criminal act;
6. THAT I fully and completely understand – before any charge can be brought – it must be firstly proved that the charge is valid in Law (otherwise I, myself, would be committing – or encouraging others to commit - a CRIMINAL TRESPASS on the Innate and Indefeasible Sovereignty of said Inhabitant);
7. THAT I understand for a crime to have been committed it must be capable of being named in Law (‘theft’, ‘fraud’, ‘murder’, etc), and there must be an Injured Party (corpus delecti) which must comprise a Human Being (e.g. homicide) or Group of Human Beings (e.g. War Crimes, genocide). I state herein that I can name the crime, and can (as may be necessary, in Court) guarantee the corpus delecti will attend said Hearing, and will, as evidence, demonstrate the injuries sustained;
8. THAT I understand ALL criminal acts (as opposed to mere Statutory violations) are the subject to the Common Law, and must (therefore) be proved in a Common Law Court. I understand that a Common Law Court comprises a Jury of 12 impartial people, and that evidence to convict must be sworn under penalty of perjury, based on first-hand knowledge, and evidence of guilt must be proved to criminal standards – namely “beyond reasonable doubt”;
Signed: ____________________________________________
Dated: _____________________________________________

:yes: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Re: Hereford Magistrates Court 17th Oct, 2011

PostPosted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 1:11 am
by treeman
Bumpity Bumb.

Re: Hereford Magistrates Court 17th Oct, 2011

PostPosted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 8:40 am
by knightron
Thanks for this Treeman..
Can I also add here; what a fantastic Day I had yesterday in Stoke-On-Trent, and at last meeting some of you guys in the flesh.
It seems the Cause is gathering momentum, The information that we gained and was imparted to us was inspirational, and I am looking forward to seeing you again soon..

All the very best ..Dave.;)

Re: Hereford Magistrates Court 17th Oct, 2011

PostPosted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 11:00 am
by treeman

Hereford Magistrates Court, 17th October 2011

(Original quick & dirty report ... Word .DOC)

(All times are approximate)

Part 1 - 10 minutes, 42 seconds (click to download the audio)

35s -> 1m 16s

Veronica argues with Judge Cadbury (JC) about being told to sit in the Public Gallery. Resolved when Guy directs Veronica to sit in the Public Gallery.

1m 20s -> 1m 50s

Clerk of the Court Roger Harris (RH) discusses with Guy how Guy wished to be called + home address etc.

1m 55s -> 3m 15s

RH reads out the "Motoring offence" allegation & history (Guy stopped/arrested for 'no Road Tax, no Insurance, no MOT, no Licence')

3m 15s -> 10m 40s

Alleged 'motoring offence'. JC agrees to call Guy "Guy". Guy then explains precisely what happened re his Pre-Action Protocol and request for Judicial Review, and finally suggests that everyone should " ... just get on with it", and have a Trial. JC agrees. Guy then points out (to the Judge and the CPS Representative) the questions he will be asking, and says he "... doesn't plead". Eventually a "not guilty" plea is entered.

8m 23s: JC asks for a copy of PC Hargreave's Witness Statement to read

9m 36s: DELICIOUS MOMENT: JC starts reading the Witness Statement as "On the 21st January, 2012 …", stops, and says "That's a good start!".

It is then agreed that the matter should be adjourned, and PC Hargreaves called as a witness to explain his Statement, at a later date. (We know Hargreaves will NOT look forward to that … so much so that there is the possibility the case will now be withdrawn. Which will be unfortunate. We WANT Hargreaves on the stand, in the Witness Box, under penalty of perjury --- answering VERY POINTED questions!).

Part 2 - 25 minutes, 48 seconds (click to download the audio)

"Bodenham Manor Restaurant" & "The Old Railway Sidings" become intertwined - largely due to County Court Judge Nadeem Khan's intransigence, plus the fact that Guy claimed "no jurisdiction" initially, and never got the chance to state that he had sold off a large chunk of the Old Railway Sidings (for which the Council were still charging him).

Repeated efforts to tell the Council were rebuffed/ignored, and Council Officials told to hang up the phone whenever Guy or Linda called.

"Bodenham Manor Restaurant" was only a going concern until 2005, when Guy's father died. Again, intransigence by the Council has prevented this FACT for emerging, and hence they are trying to charge Business Rates instead of Domestic Tariffs.

This all gets intertwined by the fact that the Council took Guy to the point of bankruptcy over the Old Railway Sidings … only withdrawing at the very last minute when Guy hired a(n expensive!) Bristol Firm of Solicitors to 'finally get through' to the Council.

Although the Council's claim was withdrawn at the last gasp, by then firms of Solicitors had added in their costs - including the fraudulent claim by local (so-called) 'Solicitor', Michael Horne. Corrupt County Court Judge, Nadeem Khan, rubber-stamped all of these costs - and would have rubber-stamped the Council's claim, if they had not withdrawn it.

For this reason Guy was suing the Council for 'irregular distress'. However he decided to withdraw that claim, since the Council had withdrawn their own claim.

The female voice is the London-based Barrister (Jenny Wiggley) hired by Herefordshire Council, who looks, speaks, and acts as though she is in a permanent state of PMT. Waffling is her speciality. At one point she tries to argue that Guy was "... not distressed" by the Council's Bankruptcy Petition, because "... Bailiffs were not called upon". (Presumably, in her little world, "distress" is only caused by Bailiffs. One wonders whether or not she would feel "distressed" if she were to be smacked in the face with a wet kipper or an elephant's trunk?)

DELICIOUS MOMENT at 2m 45s (et seq.) when JC explains (a) That he has spent all weekend reading up for this Hearing (which explains why he can understand what is going on … this gentleman did his homework!), and (b) He knows that the result was that the Council have admitted they actually owe Guy approximately £378.

DELICIOUS MOMENT at 11m 10s when JC explains the Court's original attitude to "Freeman-on-the-Land" … creating problems as "Six of one, half-a-dozen of the other".

At 12m 45 Barrister Wiggley waffles on (for what seems like an age …) until:

DELICIOUS MOMENT at 13m 55s … when JC says "Yes, but it turned out that, on the face of it, he [Guy] was correct …" … which undercut her entire waffle.

DELICIOUS MOMENT at 23m 35s … when JC is concerned to 'do it right', and tells Guy that HE can apply for costs, etc. (Linda quotes £4,000 … the fee for hiring the Bristol Solicitors)

Part 3 - 17 minutes, 31 seconds (click to download the audio)

Guy challenges jurisdiction. JC says it is his understanding that he has both Common Law and 'Statute Law' jurisdiction. (He is wrong on both counts. Firstly it is not a Common Law Court, because there is no Jury. Nevertheless - in a Common Law Court - it is true that JC WOULD have jurisdiction. BUT THAT'S NOT THE CASE HERE. Secondly, there is no such things as 'Statute Law'. Statutes are not 'Law'. They are the exact inverse of 'Law'. See here).

Nevertheless JC thinks he does have these jurisdictions (at this time). (But ... see later ... when he admits 'he may be wrong'!)

At 1m 55s JC goes on to point out that Guy "... accepts jurisdiction when it suits him ... but challenges it when it suits him to challenge it". WHICH IS TRUE. BUT. This only mirrors what Courts do. All the time. They operate under Statutes ... AND - WHEN IT SUITS THEM - throw the COMMON LAW MISDEMEANOR of "Contempt of Court" at someone ... who has the temerity to 'stand up for themselves'! (Guy said he pointed this out, but I can't actually hear that on the audio).

And - in any case - this is fine ... because it ALL revolves around CONSENT (as we know!).

There are a good few minutes from that Time Code well worth listening to. Including JC explaining the Court's attitude to Freemen-on-the-Land.

(Not terribly audible at the point when Guy refers to the Judges' Oath, and JC says "I hope you're not going to ask me to remember it!").

Guy ends up quoting Halsbury's Laws of England ("Administrative Law is nothing more than an arrangement between the Executive and the Judiciary. And the Law is absolutely clear on this subject. There is no authority for Administrative Courts in the country, and no Act could be passed to legitimise them") which results in a:

DELICIOUS MOMENT at 6m 40s, when JC says "That's going to cause a few problems, isn't it?"

What does this all mean?

1. Halsbury's states, quite categorically, that Administrative Courts & Administrative Law FORMS NO PART OF "the laws and usages of the realm". Halsbury's states, quite categorically, that Administrative Courts/Law is "merely an arrangement between the Executive & the Judiciary".

2. At a Coronation Ceremony a Monarch swears to uphold "the laws and usages of the realm".

3. When a Judge is sworn in, s/he takes on Oath which swears to support the Coronation Oath to uphold "the laws and usages of the realm".

4. Therefore Judges have NO JURISDICTION in Administrative Courts or under Administrative Law. They only have jurisdiction on a Common Law Court with a Jury of 12 (which is part and parcel of "the laws and usages of the realm").

Magistrates Courts (where this Hearing was held) and all County Courts are Administrative Courts, applying 'Administrative Law'. They are thus UNCONSTITUTIONAL, CRIMINAL, AND FRAUDULENT. And, to quote Judge Cadbury's masterful understatement: "That's going to cause a few problems, isn't it?". (Even Crown & High Courts, with a Jury, are not entirely CONSTITUTIONAL, because the Judge is allowed to 'direct' a Jury's Verdict)

Guy then points out that the whole process is an occult (occult means "hidden") C'est Que Vie Trust. And then proceeds to read from the Fraud Act 2006, and explains that Council Tax Summonses are issued by the Council - NOT BY THE COURT (we have indisputable evidence of that!).

Guy makes many claims about the lack of "due process", the lack of "due diligence - particularly on the part of Councils", the lack of just about everything - which actually results in Common Law crimes of 'breach of the peace' against all & sundry. Creating continual Torts against everyone.

JC requests a copy of Halsbury's (with John Hurst whispering the references), and decides to retire to consider what has been said.

Part 4 - 30 minutes, 34 seconds (click to download the audio)

Judge Cabury's decisions, after his 20-minute retirement.

He firstly points out that some of these issues have been considered in other Courts (errr... actually NOT Courts of Law, of course ... that was fully explained to him ... but the 'ingraining' is deep ... as we all know!).

And does actually admit that - perhaps - some of the points Guy has made "... may be right ...", and that "... clearly, it has to be looked at very closely ...", and "... maybe some people do pay too much lip-service to 'regulations' ...".

DELICIOUS MOMENT at 1m 55s when JC says "I might be locked up for this, but ..."

See (Original quick & dirty report ... Word .DOC) for a summary of the decisions by JC.

British Gas withdrew before the Hearing, with tails between legs, realising that they actually owed Guy (probably) thousands.

CPS Prosecutor now realises that ever-so-reluctant PC Hargreaves will have to take the stand if the 'motoring issue' is proceeded with. Consequently he left with his tail between his legs.

Barrister Wiggley did not get anything like the costs she was demanding, and did NOT get the Judge to agree that Guy's Lien, on her, had no effect. She therefore left, together with Council Legal Staff (who had hired her) all with tails between legs. (She, and one of the Council's Legal Staff, owe Guy far and away more - via Liens - than Guy owes them. Hence the tails between the legs)

The only 'bad' result is that Judge Cadbury refused to issue a Summons against corrupt County Court Judge Nadeem Khan. However, he did suggest that his decision should (not could) be appealed, and did agree that it would make a good Test Case. (It would seem that Judge Cadbury just didn't want to take the risk ... all by himself ... even though "... I might be locked up for this, but ...").

Re: Hereford Magistrates Court 17th Oct, 2011

PostPosted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 11:02 am
by treeman
knightron wrote:Thanks for this Treeman..
Can I also add here; what a fantastic Day I had yesterday in Stoke-On-Trent, and at last meeting some of you guys in the flesh.
It seems the Cause is gathering momentum, The information that we gained and was imparted to us was inspirational, and I am looking forward to seeing you again soon..

All the very best ..Dave.;)

And it was a pleasure meeting you Dave. :yes: :peace:

Re: Hereford Magistrates Court 17th Oct, 2011

PostPosted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 1:26 pm
by MikeThomas
I think this topic should be made 'Sticky' so it doesn't 'get lost' in the daily postings. If anyone objects PM an Admin to un-sticky it.

Mike: Thomas

Re: Hereford Magistrates Court 17th Oct, 2011

PostPosted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 2:41 pm
by pedawson
If you wish to download the audio you might have a problem with the audio not being found.
The reason for this is that the link was copied in short and no URL was included in the document.
To get over this problem use the following: (this one loads okay)

Namaste, rev;

Re: Hereford Magistrates Court 17th Oct, 2011

PostPosted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 2:46 pm
by treeman
pedawson wrote:If you wish to download the audio you might have a problem with the audio not being found.
The reason for this is that the link was copied in short and no URL was included in the document.
To get over this problem use the following: (this one loads okay)

Namaste, rev;

Cheers rev, we always get their in the end. :shake:

Re: Hereford Magistrates Court 17th Oct, 2011

PostPosted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 6:46 pm
by gerbil
great stuff.

therefore what i can gather is that we all need to remove consent to any "court" "tribunal" hearing that doesnt consist of a jury and put in a fee schedule based on the fact they are negligently misrepresenting their "court" system as the law of the land. That way if things have to proceed ie by way of force or duress on their part then these fees let them know we are onto them straightaway

this again surely goes to prove that by accepting any of their paperwork they are forcing a contract of adjudication upon us and its these new contracts with the courts that get people turned over and the judges and mags can do what want when they want.

please can anyone point to a location in halsburys where this info can be lifted easily for everyone to add to their "court" rebutalls??

I believe if jurisdiction is contended then this is the route that should be used and then they should produce their authority which now appears they have none!

brilliant work

Re: Hereford Magistrates Court 17th Oct, 2011

PostPosted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 10:09 pm
by treeman
Can you be more specific.



24. In general.

One of the grounds upon which actions may be reviewed in administrative law is that of procedural impropriety1. The impropriety may consist either of the failure to follow a procedure expressly provided for by a statute or by some other instrument having the force of law2, or of a breach of natural justice3, or it may arise out of the failure to satisfy a legitimate expectation4.

1 Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374 at 411, [1984] 3 All ER 935 at 951, HL, per Lord Diplock. As to procedural impropriety see para 59 post.

2 In which case, the question may arise as to whether the requirement not complied with was mandatory or directory. See eg London & Clydeside Estates Ltd v Aberdeen District Council [1979] 3 All ER 876 at 882, [1980] 1 WLR 182 at 188, HL, per Lord Hailsham of St Marylebone; O'Reilly v Mackman [1983] 2 AC 237 at 275-276, [1982] 3 All ER 1124 at 1126-1127, HL, per Lord Diplock; R v Governor of Canterbury Prison, ex p Craig [1991] 2 QB 195 at 204, [1990] 2 All ER 645 at 658, DC, per Watkins LJ; R v North West Thames Regional Health Authority, ex p Daniels (Rhys Williams) [1994] COD 44, (1993) 19 BMLR 67, DC; Wang v IRC [1994] 1 WLR 1286, PC. Where the proper performance of one act is a condition precedent to the performance of other acts or the taking of a decision, and the first act is invalid, all subsequent actions depending upon or flowing from it will likewise be ultra vires and invalid: see eg R v Brent London Borough Council, ex p Gunning (1985) 84 LGR 168 at 176, 186 per Hodgson J; R v Manchester City Magistrates' Court, ex p Davies [1989] QB 631, [1989] 1 All ER 90, CA; and see R v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex p Birmingham City Council (1984) 83 LGR 79 (procedural irregularity by local authority before laying proposals before minister; minister could not validly approve proposals even if it could not be said that he knew or ought to have known of the irregularity). See further para 91 post.

3 See paras 95-96 post.

4 See para 92 post.


24 In general

NOTE 2--See Sharma v Registrar to the Integrity Commission[2007] UKPC 42, [2007] 1 WLR 2849.