Sunday, October 18th, 2026, 5:32 pm
A Glance at Insolvency Petition Against Nigel Farage Reveals Conflict of Interest
Filed under: An overlooked problem
S noted earlier on in passing, referencing this latest update, trying to compel Reform UK to pay the money it owes (or take the fake political party out of business) resulted in several revelations: the party isn’t really a party, it has financial difficulties, it relies on illegal financing, and it adopted stances that are giant own goals or contradictions (hence lies).
The article points out that the solicitors/reps chosen by Reform UK aren’t without folly:
Remember, Nigel Farage asked for the un-necessary by-election on the premise that he was a victim of the Establishment. The exercise cost British taxpayers at least £250,000. What we see in my exchanges with 4-5 Gray’s Inn Square is the behaviour of the Establishment and it feels a lot like they are doing a lot more work for Nigel’s than for any other candidate.
If the by-election wasn’t really about the Establishment then it must be about something else. Maybe there are other secret trials in progress that voters were never told about.
After observing the circumstances involving 4-5 Gray’s Inn Square, I immediately sent a letter to the judge in the case explaining I had lost confidence in the procedure.
The following morning, on 1 October 2026, I sent an email to the same clerk at 4-5 Gray’s Inn Square asking them to “Please kindly explain why you did not run a conflict check before asking me to submit names and documents to 4-5 Gray’s Inn Square.”
4-5 Gray’s Inn Square never sent any response to this query. It is now radio silence.
I can not prove how many clerks and lawyers in the firm looked at the same attachments. I don’t know if the same lawyer assisting Reform UK was accidentally given the opportunity to see my documents. Nonetheless, looking at the transcript of my phone call with these people, their email response the next day and subsequent radio silence when challenged about the affair, I feel there is a real possibility they failed to maintain information barriers, also known as Chinese walls. Whether this breach of confidentiality happened deliberately or by accident doesn’t make a lot of difference.
On 7 October 2026, I took the next step and submitted a formal application to withdraw the secret legal document and put an end to the secret procedure.
The cost and potential side-effects of these incidents make the procedure uneconomical and result in an unacceptable risk of a judge making incorrect findings in a dispute.
This was not the first time somebody served one of these secret legal documents on Reform UK Party Limited. I doubt it will be the last time.
[...]
When I discovered that 4-5 Gray’s Inn Square had already done work for the other side in this dispute, the story of Father Baker and Father Pickering communicating behind the backs of abuse victims wasn’t the only thing that came to mind.
Take a moment to remember the Swiss JuristGate scandal, in particular, the greffiers who work like clerks in the court while simultaneously running businesses on the side.
In Australia, we had the notorious lawyer X, who was officially working for crime bosses while secretly working as a police informer. It was a scandal that went from the bar to the bedroom and back again. The Royal Commission into that affair made a point of asking police who slept with the lawyer (guilty as charged).
It didn’t take me long to find reports about other scandals around 4-5 Gray’s Inn Square. In one of the more minor cases, a lawyer was cleared in a disciplinary procedure after falling asleep during a trial. Then there was the lawyer Paul Cohen and the legendary $15 billion Sulu arbitration affair. An even darker affair involves Oliver Zachary White, banned from direct access work due to unauthorised handling of client funds.
I too saw conflicts like these in firms and chambers. They sometimes make a lot of money from “both sides”.
Does no rule apply here?
