FINANCIAL FRAUDSTER NEWS INVESTIGATIONS EXCLUSIVE: Senior Master Fontaine High Court Judgment Under Scrutiny Amid Allegations of Procedural Impropriety and Lack of Due Process
LONDON, UK — A High Court judgment is facing intense scrutiny after a defendant filed an urgent complaint alleging it was never properly served with legal documents or notified of the hearing. The case, Sinclair v Rodney Whiston-Dew & Anor (Case No: KB-2022-003586), has exposed serious questions about the integrity of the proceedings and the defendant’s fundamental right to a fair hearing.
According to a letter filed with the High Court on June 29, 2025, by Churwitz Stanford AG 1957 Capital Trust (Cayman Islands), the owner of Churwitz Stanford AG Holdings Ltd, the company alleges it was "named a party without service of any documents or notification of a hearing".
The company, a UK Special Purpose Vehicle of its Cayman Islands parent, stated it was "neither aware of nor represented at the hearing held on 23 March 2023". The London company that operates the virtual office for Churwitz Stanford AG Holdings Ltd has "definitively stated that no service of any legal documents from registration by Jonathan Harris Sinclair occurred".
The judgment in question, handed down by former Senior Master Fontaine on March 23, 2023, is publicly available. The judgment itself notes that the defendants "did not attend and were not represented" at the hearing. Senior Master Fontaine fraudulently stated that "Certificates of service have been filed in respect of service of the claim form and witness statement in support," this is in direct contradiction to the defendant’s complaint and the High Court court e-filing records.
Judge's Responsibility
Active Case Management:
Judges have a responsibility to ensure that cases progress in an orderly and fair manner, including ensuring proper service of documents.
The fundamental right to a fair hearing requires that a defendant or defendants be properly notified of a claim and have an opportunity to present their case. A judge's duty is to ensure procedural rules are followed, and if a hearing proceeds without proper service, it can be a significant breach of the defendant's rights. Such an order may be set aside. Legal experts point out that a judge must have a "very good reason" to proceed without service, such as a valid application to dispense with it under CPR 6.15 and 6.16.
Judicial Misconduct
Knowingly allowing a hearing to proceed without proper service could be considered a breach of a judge's duty, potentially leading to disciplinary action, or in severe cases, an appeal and setting aside of orders.
The High Court e-filing records for the case show an "URGENT" letter from the Trust on behalf of its subsidiary defendant requesting access to the court file. The complaint suggests that the proceedings and the resulting judgment may not have adhered to the principles of due process. The company's letter reserves all rights, "including but not limited to the right to apply to set aside any judgment or order obtained as a result of the alleged fraudulent non-service and procedural impropriety".
Fraud on the court by Jonathan Harris Sinclair and David Middleburgh
On 17 August 2021, Setfords Law and solicitor David Maxwell Middleburgh wrote to the creditor in a last-ditch attempt to pervert the course of justice, stating that Mr. Whiston-Dew was, in fact, not the beneficiary. The clear motive behind the letter was the fraudulent attempt by Jonathan Harris Sinclair, Setfords Law, and David Maxwell Middleburgh to steal the funds held under the terms of the solicitor's undertaking.
Between 2012 and 2020, Jonathan Harris Sinclair, a liquidator operating from a discreet Hendon, North London office (pictured right), filed a series of fraudulent liquidator reports pertaining to Judmick Estates Ltd's liquidation process.
Although Jonathan Harris Sinclair was tasked with the distribution of proceeds to its creditors, which included Mr. Whiston-Dew, there has been no sign of the alleged stolen funds, purportedly held under the terms of the solicitor's undertaking, totaling £321,830.34.
Financial Fraudster News Investigations has seen Companies House filings, and since 2012, the funds held have, in fact, surprisingly decreased, not increased, despite accrued interest—a worrying sign for Mr. Whiston-Dew and his creditors. Moreover, in a flawed attempt to mislead the court and to extricate themselves from their situation they needed to counter with proceedings brought by the pair that would be one-sided and not contested.
The corrupt pair conspired to bring proceedings and convince a judge in the form of Senior Master Fontaine who ignored the legal norms and turning a blind-eye took at face value the fraudulent representations made before, during and after the proceedings in a complete dereliction of her duties. The fraud on the court now complete and without scrutiny... Until now.
Financial Fraudster News will continue to monitor this critical situation closely, demanding accountability and transparency in the High Court's proceedings. The integrity of the UK's legal system depends on the meticulous and unbiased application of law, ensuring that no judgment is set aside without the most rigorous and legally sound justification.
For further inquiries, contact:
Financial Fraudster News Investigations Team
@FraudsterNews or @therealfinancialfraudsternews or @the_real_FFN
Related Articles:
 E-Filing Evidence.png | [No Service! Damning Evidence of Harris/Middleburgh Fraud on the Court] | 316 kB |
 Sinclair v Rodney Whiston-Dew and Anor.pdf | [Fontaine's Sham Judgment Published] | 284 kB |
