What kind of man denies that a child is his?
Richard Wilmot, a millionaire pilot, has spent 16 years denying his daughter is his. Even his own lawyers have said his actions will bankrupt him yet he shows no signs of abating.
#familycourt #economicabuse #vexatiouslitigant
THREAD
Richard Wilmot, a millionaire pilot, has spent 16 years denying his daughter is his. Even his own lawyers have said his actions will bankrupt him yet he shows no signs of abating.
#familycourt #economicabuse #vexatiouslitigant
THREAD
The judgment of Mr Justice Mostyn starts off well....
Some of the background of this extremely long-running case can be found in the judgment of 25 July 2013, in judgments of 15 April 2014, 13 January 2016 , 25 January 2018 and in the judgment of the CoA dated 27 October 2017.
Some of the background of this extremely long-running case can be found in the judgment of 25 July 2013, in judgments of 15 April 2014, 13 January 2016 , 25 January 2018 and in the judgment of the CoA dated 27 October 2017.
”There is no doubt that the respondent is an exceptionally vexatious litigant. I made the original extended civil restraint order on 15 April 2014. It has been extended by orders made by me and the Court of Appeal and is currently scheduled to expire on 24 January 2020.”
He had not confined his vexations to these proceedings. An extended civil restraint order was imposed on him in 2017 following a protracted & toxic dispute with his local planning authority where he had made wild allegations and was found to have litigated totally without merit.
The respondent has continued his campaign against his wife, his children, and his wife's legal representatives unrestrained.
He has:
* continued to bombard the court with emails & spurious applications.
* widened the scope of his barrage to include an utterly meritless application to the Administrative Court, seeking judicial review of my decision to appoint a receiver back in 2014.
* continued to bombard the court with emails & spurious applications.
* widened the scope of his barrage to include an utterly meritless application to the Administrative Court, seeking judicial review of my decision to appoint a receiver back in 2014.
* sent 50 emails sent by him to the court since my order was made.
* bombarded the applicant's solicitor with emails.
The respondent has been in blatant breach of an injunction and has sent to the applicant's solicitor dozens of messages to her domestic email address.
* bombarded the applicant's solicitor with emails.
The respondent has been in blatant breach of an injunction and has sent to the applicant's solicitor dozens of messages to her domestic email address.
The applicant had to defend a grossly irresponsible allegation made by Richard Wilmot that she had fraudulently procured DNA results.
The response to the judgment of 25 Jan 1917, was to unleash a torrent of emails alleging, including that:
* the orders were made without jurisdiction
* the wife and her advisers were guilty of fraud;
* he would seek to recover over £1 million to cover his alleged losses.
* the orders were made without jurisdiction
* the wife and her advisers were guilty of fraud;
* he would seek to recover over £1 million to cover his alleged losses.
By March 2018 he was stating that he had reported the applicant's counsel to the Bar Standards Board, her solicitor to the Solicitors Regulation Authority and both of them to the police on suspicion of perjury and fraud.
In August 2018 Wilmot instructed a firm of solicitors to write to the applicant's solicitors challenging the validity of the principal financial remedy orders made in 2006; alleging that the recovery of funds by the receiver from the respondent's pension was unlawful.
Mr Justice Mostyn: "a yet further example of the wholly unreasonable and punitive approach of Captain Wilmot to this very extensive litigation which has been detailed in my many judgments and those of my predecessors".
On 26 July 2019 the respondent made an application which is largely incoherent...
he seems to be seeking that the original application for a financial remedy made nearly 20 years ago should be relisted on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction to hear this case, and never has.
