“Though the Witch knew the Deep Magic, there is a magic deeper still which she did not know. Her knowledge goes back only to the dawn of time. But if she could have looked a little further back… she would have known that when a willing victim who had committed no treachery was killed in a traitor’s stead, the Table would crack and Death itself would start working backward.” - Aslan, C.S. Lewis, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe

Recently Tried in the Court of Public Opinion

Ex parte Chromatic: In the Matter of Accommodation Refused and Injunction Sought


⟡ On the Defendant’s Cooperative Offer and the Claimant’s Contradictions ⟡

Filed: 10 September 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/INJUNCTION
Download PDF: 2025-09-10_Addendum_Westminster_CooperationContradictions.pdf
Summary: Demonstrates that Westminster refused voluntary accommodation yet sought injunction, creating contradiction, waste, and breach of duty.

I. What Happened

• On 10 September 2025, the Defendant received the Claimant’s injunction bundle only that morning, two days before the listed hearing.
• The Defendant immediately emailed Westminster Legal Services, copying both the County Court and the Central Family Court.
• Attached were the Claimant’s own bundle, plus two key exhibits:
– 28 July 2025 email: Kirsty Hornal’s rejection of the Defendant’s communication boundary.
– 1 September 2025 email: the Defendant’s voluntary institution of a one-bundle-per-week communication structure.
• The Defendant confirmed cooperation without need of injunctive relief.

II. What the Document Establishes

• Late service – bundle served on 10 September, compressing preparation time and breaching fairness.
• Contradiction – voluntary communication boundary refused in July, then demanded in September.
• Unnecessary application – the Defendant’s voluntary arrangement already satisfies proportionality.
• Evidence of cooperation – Defendant transparent and constructive; Claimant hostile and duplicative.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

• To preserve evidence of reasonable accommodation offered and refused.
• To highlight procedural contradiction and discriminatory escalation.
• To expose Westminster’s reliance on injunction as performance, not protection.
• To provide a unified record across Family, Administrative, Civil, and County Court proceedings.

IV. Applicable Standards & Violations

• CPR 1.1 – overriding objective breached by unnecessary escalation.
• CPR 32 & 39 – late service undermines fairness.
• PD 25A – injunction applications must consider less restrictive alternatives; the Defendant’s voluntary bundle already sufficed.
• Equality Act 2010, ss.20 & 149 – refusal of written-only bundle violates reasonable adjustments and PSED duties.
• HRA 1998, s.6 – authorities acted incompatibly with:
– Article 6 ECHR (fair trial),
– Article 8 ECHR (family life),
– Article 13 ECHR (effective remedy).
• Children Act 1989, ss.1 & 22(3) – welfare displaced by procedural hostility.
• Children Act 2004, s.11 – safeguarding duties diverted into litigation.
• Case Law – Re C and B (2001), Lancashire CC v B (2000), YC v UK (2012), Re L (2007) condemn unnecessary escalation and demand proportionality.
• Academic Authority –
– Bromley’s Family Law: litigation cannot replace cooperation; misuse of safeguarding powers is unlawful.
– Amos, Human Rights Law: proportionality test prohibits excessive or duplicative intervention.

V. SWANK’s Position

This is not safeguarding. This is contradiction institutionalised.

• We do not accept the fiction that injunction was necessary.
• We reject the waste of judicial resources and discriminatory refusal of reasonable adjustment.
• We will document this contradiction as evidence of institutional bad faith and bureaucratic waste.

⟡ This Entry Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. ⟡

Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected.
This is not a blog.
This is a legal-aesthetic instrument.
Filed with deliberate punctuation, preserved for litigation and education.
Because evidence deserves elegance.
And contradiction deserves an archive.

© 2025 SWANK London Ltd. All formatting and structural rights reserved. Unlicensed reproduction will be cited as panic, not authorship.

⚖️ Legal Rights & Archival Footer This Dispatch Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected. This document does not contain confidential family court material. It contains the lawful submissions, filings, and lived experiences of a party to multiple legal proceedings — including civil claims, safeguarding audits, and formal complaints. All references to professionals are strictly in their public roles and relate to conduct already raised in litigation. This is not a breach of privacy. It is the preservation of truth. Protected under Article 10 of the ECHR, Section 12 of the Human Rights Act, and all applicable rights to freedom of expression, legal self-representation, and public interest disclosure. To mimic this format without licence is not homage. It is breach. We do not permit imitation. We preserve it as evidence. This is not a blog. It is a legal-aesthetic instrument. Filed with velvet contempt. Preserved for future litigation. Because evidence deserves elegance, retaliation deserves an archive, and writing is how I survive this pain. Attempts to silence or intimidate this author will be documented and filed in accordance with SWANK protocols. © 2025 SWANK London Ltd. All formatting and structural rights reserved. Use requires express permission or formal licence. Unlicensed mimicry will be cited — as panic, not authorship.

No comments:

Post a Comment

This archive is a witness table, not a control panel.

We do not moderate comments. We do, however, read them, remember them, and occasionally reframe them for satirical or educational purposes.

If you post here, you’re part of the record.

Civility is appreciated. Candour is immortal.