Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. Solicitor General v Millinder 6. An insuperable obstacle is that Empowering Wind MFC and Earth Energy have both been compulsorily wound up. The former was wound up in 2016 on a petition by HMRC; the latter was wound up in 2018 on a petition by Middlesbrough FC founded upon the non-payment of costs awarded in its favour under a consent order signed by Earth Energy’s then solicitors. Mr Millinder was unsuccessful in his attempts to challenge the liquidation of Earth Energy, to which he claimed Empowering Wind MFC had assigned a cause of action against Middlesbrough FC which, by way of set off or cross-claim, extinguished any debt owed by Earth Energy to Middlesbrough FC. 7. The liquidator of both companies, a Mr Hannon, decided not to pursue any claims either company may have had against Middlesbrough FC. In any event, he was not put in funds to pursue any such claim. The liquidator did not accept that there had been a valid assignment of the cause of action to Earth Energy, and various judges, including the Chancellor in the judgment to which I have referred, have held that there was insufficient evidence to support Mr Millinder’s assertion that there was. Mr Millinder then tried unsuccessfully to pursue the claims himself, which he could not do, because any cause of action remained vested in one or other of the defunct companies. 8. A further insuperable obstacle is that any claims that might have been pursued by the companies or by the liquidator, had he wished to do so, have long since become timebarred. 9. As Mr Justice Swift stated in paragraph 7 of his judgment: “The Chancellor recognised that what Mr Millinder wanted was a court determination of whether [Middlesbrough FC] had acted in breach of contract or had any claim against either of his companies. In his judgment the Chancellor explained very clearly and simply why the opportunity for any such court determination was now long passed”. 10. A hallmark of Mr Millinder’s behaviour is his willingness to make wild and unsubstantiated allegations of fraud, corruption and conspiracy against any judge who has made a ruling with which he disagrees, particularly any judge who has made an order which prevents him from re-opening arguments which he has already run and lost. He is prone to bombarding the court with voluminous documentation, sent by email, which airs the same grievances and the same misconceived arguments that have been repeatedly aired and rejected by the Court in earlier proceedings. He does not utilise the appropriate procedures for making applications. He is also in the habit of sending deeply unpleasant and offensive email messages not just to judges, but to members of the court staff, who are entitled to go about their jobs without being subjected to such abuse. This sort of behaviour is antithetic to the smooth administration of justice, as dealing with Mr Millinder’s lengthy diatribes diverts the court staff (and the judiciary) from attending to applications made by other court users. The section 42 order. 11. The section 42 order provided, among other matters, that: 3