A long running legal dispute between an SRA-regulated solicitor and the peer-to-peer lending platform Open Access Finance Ltd has settled, the mouseinthecourt can exclusively report.
In 2016, Mr Andrew Jonathan Milne, described in court papers as “an experienced practising solicitor in the City of London”, took out a series of crowd-funded loans facilitated by the peer-to-peer lender Open Access Finance Ltd, which trades under the name Unbolted.
In 2019 he launched a High Court claim against the platform (and subsequently the 600-or-so investors) alleging, among other things, various technical breaches of the Consumer Credit act and the Financial Services & Markets act.
You can read our extensive coverage of the case so far here.
Please donate to the Cheese Fund to support crowd-funded journalism of the P2P sector.
Reporting by Daniel Cloake.
This has been a roller coaster ride of a case to follow with the defendants alleging that Milne’s “objective is to increase the First Defendant’s legal costs in an attempt to make these proceedings uneconomical to defend“.
A judge in 2019 mentioned a letter [para 15] sent by Milne which was “expressed in terms which are both aggressive and hectoring. The approach in the letter clearly suggests that Mr Milne’s objective is to create as much difficulty as possible for the defendant, with a view to destroying it. He says so in terms.“
Further examples of this attritional conduct was mentioned at a later court hearing. Milne had reportedly:
- Issued a pre-action protocol letter for defamation against the directors of the platform in 2019.
- Threatened to sue two of the first defendants employees in 2022
- Made criminal accusations against the firm and threatened to issue a private prosecution in 2018.
An extract from this remarkable letter dated 27th November 2018 is shown below.
The reference to “my solicitors” at the end means Andrew Milne & Co which, as the name suggests, is wholly owned by Mr Milne.
The mouseinthecourt has seen no evidence to support these accusations.
The platform was not fully immune to criticism either: we reported on a bitterly contested security for costs application brought by them – which failed.
Also of note was an application for determination of a so-called preliminary issue held back in March 2021 which could be said to have been a tactical mistake. Procedural Judge Deputy Master Marc Glover found “it striking” that Open Access Finance had a “lack of detailed focus” in their application.
The court concluded: “In this case, the parties’ invitation to the Court to venture onto the minefield without an agreed map, presents a “treacherous shortcut” which the Court is not willing to take. “
Even this humble blogger was dragged into the mix with accusations that I had carried out an attack on Milne leaving him “close to death” under the instructions from the defendants. An accusation which even Milne’s own barrister distanced himself from in court.
The Settlement
A so-called Tomlin Order was filed at the court on Friday 12th April 2024. Tomlin orders are the bane of this bloggers life as they allow parties to hide details of the settlement in a confidential schedule.
As a result we are unable to publicly share what the settlement comprises of.
It is understood that a communication was sent out, barring a few spam filters, to the 612 investors in the loans on Monday 15th April confirming a settlement had been reached.
Lenders spoken to by the mouseinthecourt were reluctant to share further details citing a request that the information contained within the e-mail are not disclosed.
It is not known how much of the £148k capital outstanding under the current loans will be returned, or whether interest payments (accruing at the earliest since October 2018) will be forthcoming.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES
BUSINESS LIST (ChD)
Case No: FS-2019-000004
(1) ANDREW JONATHAN MILNE
-v-
(1) OPEN ACCESS FINANCE LIMITED
(2) MR MAREK SZYMANSKI as representative of those lenders who lent to the Claimant under the loans listed in Annex A to the Particulars of Claim
Mouse in the Court 