ref B_PBC to BEGG COURT ORDER PLUS

IN THE {WEST LONDON] COUNTY COURT
Case No: [ ]
Mrs MICHELE HILLGARTH versus
MITRE HOUSE MANAGEMENT LIMITED and
PAUL BROWN-CONSTABLE
and
SEGAR KARUPIAH
and
JAMIL RAJA
PARTICULARS OF CLAIM (A) Relevant Background Information
Claimant
First Defendant
Second Defendant
Third Defendant
Fourth Defendant
1. The Claimant is one of nine Ieaseholders in a block of flats at Mitre House, King's Road, London SW3. The First Defendant is the Head Landlord of Mitre House and was previously responsible for managing Mitre House on behalf of the Ieaseholders. By an Order of the First~Tier Property Tribunal made on 28 June 2017 (pursuant to an action brought by the Claimant and other Ieaseholders at Mitre House) the firm of Maunder Taylor was appointed to manage Mitre House in lieu of the First Defendant.
comment: you will note the First Tier Tribunal’s Decision and reasoning:
Page 2 (7). On the first day of the hearing the Applicant presented its case and Ms Hillgarth gave evi- dence. There were various grounds for the application most notably what was said to be a lack of transparency on how funds were spent during the 2014 major works, whether the landlord could charge for any management it carried out itself, whether the landlord was competent to carry out the management itself and alleged poor and unprofessional communication with the leaseholders.
Page 3 (8). On the morning of the second day of the hearing we were informed that the Respondent now consented to the appointment of Mr Michael Maunder Taylor as manager. It was agreed between the parties that the appointment would be for a period of 2 years during which they would seek to reg- ularise the company position by making all leaseholders shareholders followed by a General Meeting at which new directors would be elected. The parties also proposed that once these steps had been achieved the Management Order would lapse 28 days thereafter. The parties signed a form of agree- ment and this is attached to this decision as a matter of completeness.
Page 3 (13). We consider that it is just and convenient to make an Order appointing Mr Maunder Taylor as a manager to carry out the management functions identified in the Order attached to this decision at Appendix 2. We were satisfied that it was just and convenient in the circumstances to make the order to allow the parties an opportunity to regularise the shareholding of the company and to seek to appoint new directors. It was clear to us that relations between the Applicants and the landlord had ir- retrievably broken down.
And in response to my written request to the Tribunal to add to their decision, that when I was invited to present our defence, I requested to question Mrs Hillgarth on oath and asked her two questions. The first being was she aware of her comments on the audio recording on 23 May 2014? The second question was did she source two independent quotations from a company called Wade?