⟡ THE INJUNCTION ENSEMBLE ⟡
Filed: 6 October 2025
Reference: SWANK/WESTMINSTER/INJUNCTION-ENFORCEMENT
Download PDF: 2025-10-06_Core_CountyCourt_TheInjunctionEnsemble_M03CL193.pdf
Summary: Enforcement application and costs-variation motion regarding Westminster’s defiance of Deputy District Judge Dray’s order dated 12 September 2025.
I. What Happened
On 12 September 2025, before Deputy District Judge Dray, an injunction order was granted in case M03CL193, confirming the Applicant’s lawful right to maintain written publication and directing Westminster to channel all correspondence through director@swanklondon.com.
Westminster—predictably—treated the order as a fashion accessory rather than an instruction.
By October, they had yet to comply, choosing instead to perform bureaucratic pirouettes of avoidance, misplaced authority, and procedural choreography best described as municipal mime.
II. What the Document Establishes
• The original injunction remains legally binding.
• The Applicant has now filed an N244 Enforcement Application, complete with Section IX – Variation of Costs Order, requesting reimbursement of the £947 unjustly imposed at the September hearing.
• Westminster’s conduct demonstrates deliberate disobedience of a court order and continued interference with protected rights of publication, correspondence, and professional identity.
• The matter now escalates formally to an enforcement and costs hearing before the Central London County Court.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because when a Local Authority believes itself too regal to obey the judiciary, SWANK London Ltd. must remind it that contempt is not couture.
Because court orders are not advisory accessories.
Because procedural insubordination, when executed with public funds, deserves to be documented in silk and irony.
IV. Violations
• Civil Procedure Rules 44.2 & 70.4 – non-compliance with judicial direction and failure to satisfy costs fairness.
• Human Rights Act 1998, Section 6 – public authority acting unlawfully in its public capacity.
• Equality Act 2010, Section 29 – discriminatory obstruction of communication and participation.
• Judicial Authority Clause (Implied) – refusal to comply with a valid injunction order.
V. SWANK’s Position
SWANK London Ltd. regards this matter as a study in bureaucratic vanity: an example of how a public authority, when faced with its own reflection in a court order, attempts to redraw the mirror.
The Applicant’s N244 application seeks to enforce the order and transfer the cost burden to the Respondent, as justice demands.
The £947 once imposed upon the mother was not payment for disobedience—it was the price of dignity in a court that witnessed it.
Now, the bill returns to sender.
Filed under the jurisdiction of the Mirror Court — SWANK London Ltd.
A House of Velvet Contempt and Evidentiary Precision.
🪞 We file what others forget.
⚖️ Legal Rights & Archival Footer
This document has been formally archived by SWANK London Ltd. Every entry is timestamped and jurisdictional. All references to professional actors and institutions relate solely to conduct already raised in public proceedings.
Protected under Article 10 ECHR, Section 12 HRA, and the doctrines of Public Interest Disclosure and Legal Self-Representation.
© 2025 SWANK London Ltd. All structural, linguistic, and aesthetic rights reserved.