I and my family are being sued by a Company (the Claimant), which is a tied agent of a well known UK Wealth Management Company.  After my wife and I suffered cancer, our family unanimously agreed that it was time for us to retire and that we should sell our independent financial advice company.  

The Claimant bought our company in 2014, promising to maintain its independent status.  However, after the Claimant reneged on this promise and attempted to persuade our 'independent' clients to transfer their investments to the Wealth Management Company, many clients have walked away.  The Claimant seeks to blame us.  Its claim is based upon various issues, the main one concerning non-compete clauses within the sale agreement. The Claimant has to date paid only half of the purchase price for our company and is presumably using the remainder due to us to help with its legal expenses.  

We, on the other hand, have been forced to use our own funds to defend ourselves and to issue a counterclaim for the outstanding amount of the purchase price due.

Our family is now running out of money.  The legal case has been going on for more than three years and the repeated dire warnings from the Claimant's solicitor of our likely bankruptcy lead us to believe that the Claimant's intention is to starve us into submission.  The half of the purchase price which we were paid has gone, our savings and pension funds have almost run out, and any available equity within our family homes has been used up.  We will soon run out of money to pay our solicitor and we will need money to pay for a barrister when the case goes to trial.  

Surely British justice cannot mean that the party with the most money will succeed in trampling over the party with the least, irrespective of the truth?