https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLesiwfqLMY

Has anyone bought his book? I've lost the link to it but the run down included an impression list of wins

What would be the best reasons/presentable legitimate justification for the CH1 that would be defensible if they came under scrutiny (assume that in this scenario I am also a trustee and beneficiary of the same trust but the trust has other trustees and other beneficiaries) That’s the right question to be asking — if the trust charge is challenged, you want to be able to point to a substantive, commercial, and legally recognisable justification, not something that looks like a paper shield. Courts look at substance over form and will test for “real obligations” and “legitimate commercial purpose.” Here are the most defensible justifications you could present for a CH1 charge to a private trust (with you as trustee/beneficiary among others): 1. Loan to You by the Trust - Set-up: The trust lends you funds (could be cash advanced, or assets transferred to you, e.g. investments, or even paying off personal liabilities on your behalf). - Security: You grant the trust a legal charge (via CH1) to secure repayment. - Defensibility: Courts respect properly documented loan agreements. If the trust genuinely advanced value, the charge is a straightforward secured loan. ⚖️ Defensible because: It mirrors exactly what a bank would do. Even if the loan is interest-free or long-term, it’s still a real obligation. 2. Securing Beneficiaries’ Interests - Set-up: The trust is structured to benefit multiple beneficiaries (family members, children, etc). The trustees resolve to protect those interests by registering a charge over your property. - Security: The CH1 secures “all monies and obligations owed by [you] to the trust” — ensuring the trust’s assets are ring-fenced against third-party claims. - Defensibility: Trustees have a fiduciary duty to safeguard trust property. Protecting assets with security aligns with that duty. ⚖️ Defensible because: It shows the trustees are acting for the benefit of all beneficiaries, not just you. 3. Indemnity for Trustee Liabilities

Fantastic news!!! Full judgment: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Farley-and-others-v-Paymaster-trading-as-Equiniti.pdf Key paragraphs to refer to in your paperwork if needed: ✅ No “threshold of seriousness” Best para: [59] “…Article 82(1) of the GDPR must be interpreted as precluding a national rule or practice which makes compensation for non-material damage … subject to a condition that the damage suffered … had reached a certain degree of seriousness.” Also cite [76] “…there is no need to consider whether the individual claims would cross such a threshold.” ✅ Distress is not essential Best para: [51] “The governing provision is Article 82, which refers to ‘non-material damage’ without limitation. Section 168(1) … tells us that this term ‘includes distress’ but it is plain that this is an illustrative point. Section 168 does not purport to define or limit the scope…” Best para: [73] “…the GDPR does not rule out the possibility that the concept of non-material damage encompasses the fear that the data subject’s personal data will be misused by third parties.” ✅ Unlawful processing itself is sufficient (no need to prove opening/reading) Best para: [6(1)] “Proof that the data were disclosed is not an essential ingredient of an allegation of processing or infringement.” Best para: [39] “…it was not essential for the appellants to allege or prove third-party disclosure. Despite the rejection of that aspect of their case the appellants are still entitled to complain that the respondent’s conduct involved processing….” ✅ Low-value claims are valid (not abusive or trivial) Best para: [101] “The damages claim and the likely recovery may in many of the cases be modest … But the modest scale of the likely recovery cannot of itself be sufficient to justify dismissal of the claim.” Best para: [102] “The mere fact that a claim is small should not automatically result in the court refusing to hear it at all. If I am entitled to recover a debt of £50 … it would be an affront to justice if my claim were simply struck out.”