Page 581 - FINAL MASTER 616pp 20-6-19 SOUND

-4-
in THe WesT London CoUnTY CoUrT - Case No: [ ]
Mrs MiCHeLe HiLLGArTH - Claimant
versus
MiTre HoUse MAnAGeMenT LiMiTed - First Defendant and
pAUL BroWn-ConsTABLe - Second Defendant
and
seGAr KArUpiAH - Third Defendant
and
JAMiL rAJA - Fourth Defendant __________________________________________________________________________________
pArTiCULArs oF CLAiM
__________________________________________________________________________________
A Considered response: MHML Were GreATLY reLieved HAvinG oFFered no CoMMenT THroUGHoUT THe HeArinG sAve For THe TWo qUeries ABove MAde To Mrs HiLLGArTH WHiLsT on oATH WHiCH We Consider indiCATive oF Her HonesTY in ALL MATTers ConCerninG THese spUrioUs & sCUrriLoUs ACCUsATions
11. The Consent order of the First Tier Property Tribunal approved a settlement agreement which had been negotiated and agreed on behalf of mhml by the Second Defendant, Paul Brown-Constable.
A Considered response: THis WAs A sCrAp oF pAper inCorreCTLY siGned in HAsTe And in error As iT reqUired AGreeMenT BY ALL MHML direCTors And WoULd Be Considered UnenForCeABLe For vArioUs LeGiTiMATe reAsons
12. The said settlement agreement contained provisions to the effect that the three then exist- ing directors of mhml would resign, and that mhml would issue new shares to all those lease- holders at mitre house who were not already shareholders of mhml. in this way mhml would in future be owned equally by all the nine leaseholders in the block, who would then elect new directors of mhml to replace the resigning directors.
A Considered response: An oFFer MAde BY MHML MonTHs BeFore BUT iGnored
13. however following the order of the First-Tier Property Tribunal the Fourth Defendant, claim- ing to be the managing Director of mhml (this notwithstanding that he had not then and has not since been appointed in person as a director of mhml) repudiated on behalf of mhml the settlement agreement which had been signed on behalf of mhml by the Second Defendant.
he further gave instructions that no further communications were to take place with mhml through the Second Defendant. he indicated however that mhml would be prepared to trans- fer the head lease of mitre house to a new company owned by all the leaseholders, including himself.
A Considered response: THis WAs A sCrAp oF pAper inCorreCTLY siGned in HAsTe And in error As iT reqUired AGreeMenT BY ALL MHML direCTors And WoULd Be Considered UnenForCeABLe For vArioUs LeGiTiMATe reAsons
14. While the Property Tribunal had jurisdiction to effect a change of management at mitre house, (and did so), it had no jurisdiction to enforce that part of the settlement agreement relat- ing to the change of directors or to the issue of further shares in mhml. enforcement of that part would have required renewed litigation in a different court. Therefore the Claimant and other leaseholders accepted that the settlement agreement had been terminated by repudiation, and established a new company called mitre house management Company (2017) limited to acquire the said head lease.
PleaSe reFer To aTTaCheD “AddendA/FUrTHer reFerenCes” iN SuPPorT oF argumeNT