⟡ THE HEARING THAT NEVER WAS: A CASE STUDY IN LOCAL AUTHORITY AMNESIA AND ADMINISTRATIVE SELF-CANNIBALISM ⟡
Filed: 28 November 2025
Reference Code: SWANK/WCC-RBKC/01CORE-S34-LISTINGFAILURE
PDF: 2025-11-28_PC20013_01Core_Administrative_CFC_LA_HMCTS_ApplicationConflict_S34HearingVacateRequest.pdf
Summary: RBKC/Westminster panic-email HMCTS to beg for the cancellation of a hearing they caused, denied, and could not explain.
I. WHAT HAPPENED
On 28 November 2025, the Local Authority—represented by RBKC’s Rosita Moise—sent an email dripping with administrative desperation, pleading with HMCTS to vacate a hearing they insisted did not exist and yet urgently needed removed.
The chain is a masterpiece of bureaucratic self-incrimination:
The LA filed an S.34 application on 12 November.
HMCTS listed a hearing for 1 December because of that application.
The LA claimed they “could not see” their own application.
The LA’s solicitor, Ms. Khan, insisted a hearing had already occurred on 13 November.
HMCTS confirmed the LA did file the application and that’s why the hearing was listed.
The LA then begged the court for “urgent confirmation today” that the hearing was vacated.
It is rare to watch an institution contradict itself in real time with this level of confidence and confusion.
This is not administration.
This is performance art.
II. WHAT THE DOCUMENT ESTABLISHES
The Local Authority does not know what applications it has submitted.
They filed an S.34, then insisted they hadn’t.Their own solicitor contradicted their own record.
A judicially recognised form of institutional doublethink.HMCTS had better knowledge of the LA’s filings than the LA itself.
Always reassuring.The LA tried to erase a hearing by pretending it was unnecessary.
A novel approach to public law.The administrative confusion directly affects Regal, Prerogative, Kingdom, and Heir, whose lives are shaped by people who cannot recall their own actions.
The Local Authority cannot track its litigation, yet insists it can manage four medically complex children.
The tone of panic (“VERY URGENT”) reveals their internal fear that the court will see the truth:
they caused the hearing, then denied it, then tried to bury the evidence.
III. WHY SWANK LOGGED IT
SWANK logged this because:
It is a pure specimen of Local Authority incompetence preserved in textual form.
It shows the breakdown of internal communication between Legal, Social Care, and external solicitors.
It reveals the LA’s willingness to misrepresent procedural history to HMCTS.
It demonstrates administrative gaslighting aimed at reshaping judicial memory.
It affects the legal landscape around Regal, Prerogative, Kingdom, and Heir by showing that the institutions controlling their lives cannot control their inbox.
This is Core Evidence not because it is dramatic,
but because it identifies the structural idiocy that underpins the entire case.
IV. APPLICABLE STANDARDS & VIOLATIONS
• Family Procedure Rules — Duty of Candour:
Violated by the LA’s contradictory statements.
• Children Act 1989 — Institutional Competence Requirement:
Entirely absent.
• HMCTS Interaction Standards:
Undermined by the LA’s attempt to rewrite its own litigation history.
• Public Law Duties:
Incompatibility demonstrated in writing.
• Human Rights Act — Article 6 fairness:
Threatened when institutions fabricate, forget, and reinvent procedural facts.
V. SWANK’S POSITION
SWANK states, with judicial poise and aesthetic contempt:
An institution that cannot remember its own application has no business managing four children’s lives.
The panic-vacate request is not an administrative query; it is an admission of systemic dysfunction.
Regal, Prerogative, Kingdom, and Heir remain displaced under the authority of bodies that cannot distinguish:
what they filed,
when they filed it,
why they filed it,
or whether the court should know.
SWANK therefore enters this entry as Exhibit LA-63,
a perfect specimen of Local Authority chaos disguised as correspondence.
⟡ Formally archived by SWANK London LLC — Evidence with Teeth. ⟡