⟡ N1 CLAIM STATUS REQUEST – CENTRAL LONDON COUNTY COURT (CNBC) ⟡
Filed: 2 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/CNBC/N1-STATUS-INQUIRY
Download PDF: 2025-06-02_Core_PC-129_CNBC_N1ClaimStatusRequest.pdf
Summary: A written request to the Central London County Court (Civil National Business Centre) seeking confirmation of service and progression details for the claimant’s multi-defendant N1 civil claim, filed March 2025. The letter asserts procedural transparency and written-only communication standards under SWANK’s jurisdictional doctrine of evidentiary correspondence.
I. What Happened
After filing a multi-defendant N1 claim in March 2025, SWANK London Ltd., acting under the directorship of Polly Chromatic, received no acknowledgment of service, movement, or procedural update.
On 2 June 2025, the Director issued a formal written request to CaseProgression.CNBC@justice.gov.uk, seeking:
Confirmation of service for all named defendants.
A written update on claim progression.
Clarification of any outstanding procedural requirements.
The letter was written in the SWANK Written-Only Protocol format — a policy recognised under both the Equality Act 2010 and Reasonable Adjustment standards, prohibiting phone or verbal correspondence.
The result is a masterclass in civil procedure written as aesthetic defiance.
II. What the Document Establishes
• That the claim remains valid, active, and pending formal service confirmation.
• That written communication is a reasonable adjustment under medical necessity, not a preference.
• That SWANK London Ltd. is the formal entity responsible for correspondence on behalf of the claimant.
• That bureaucratic silence constitutes procedural obstruction, not neutrality.
• That when the system refuses clarity, documentation becomes strategy.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
• To memorialise an early instance of administrative inertia — the court’s delay as performance art.
• To reinforce that civil litigation is a paper-based duel, and SWANK writes in brocade.
• To ensure every administrative silence is captured, timestamped, and aesthetically humiliated.
• Because absence of response is itself a form of evidence.
IV. Legal & Procedural Framework
Instruments Cited:
• Civil Procedure Rules 6 & 7 – Service and Acknowledgment of Claim.
• Equality Act 2010, ss.20–21 – Failure to honour communication adjustments.
• Human Rights Act 1998, Art. 6 – Right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time.
• CPR Practice Direction 51Z – Digital filing and acknowledgment protocols.
Standards Invoked:
• Written-only correspondence (SWANK Communication Policy, 2024).
• Archival jurisdiction under the SWANK Evidentiary Charter.
• Documentation as lawful replacement for verbal interaction.
V. SWANK’s Position
“Delay is not neutrality; it is the bureaucracy’s preferred weapon.”
SWANK London Ltd. holds that the civil system’s silence does not imply progress but rather bureaucratic choreography — the performance of delay disguised as decorum.
The request therefore transforms inaction into record: a written mirror held to procedural absurdity.
The Director’s correspondence formalises what every litigant learns too late: in administrative theatre, the only dialogue worth preserving is the one written in your own tone.
⟡ 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 silence deserves publication.