Page 2 - ref B_PBC to BEGG COURT ORDER PLUS

To both questions, Mrs Hillgarth replied by denying knowledge of sourcing any Wade quotes and con- firmed she did not say “will be used for something else”, or “well then everybody will be happy.” And indeed considered/confirmed on oath that the audio recording had been doctored and she had no recollection of the conversation.
When asked by Judge S. O’Sullivan if I wished to make further comment or query, I respectfully de- clined and made clear I saw no reason to progress the proceedings any further and I retired so allow- ing the Tribunal to appoint Maunder Taylor.
The reply I received back from the Tribunal dated 14 July 2017 stated:
Mr Brown Constable also asked that the decision be corrected to make reference to his request to admit an audio transcript into evidence. Given the parties were able to reach agreement in this matter without hearing Mr Brown Constable’s evidence the tribunal does not consider it appropriate to include reference to this matter in its decision. The parties will have noted that the decision only contains a brief summary of the parties’ respective positions by way of background and does not comment in detail on the evidence or the merits of the parties’ cases.
It should be noted that firstly Mrs Hillgarth’s denial on oath is registered at the Tribunal and secondly the Tribunals’s decision states quite clearly:
“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 irretrievably broken down.”
and
The parties will have noted that the decision only contains a brief summary of the parties’ re- spective positions by way of background and does not comment in detail on the evidence or the merits of the parties’ cases.
The Tribunal decision makes clear that “It was clear to us that relations between the Applicants and the landlord had irretrievably broken down” and that “the decision only contains a brief summary of the parties’ respective positions by way of background and does not comment in detail on the evidence or the merits of the parties’ cases.
Consequently, other than Mrs Hillgarth’s denial of sourcing two independent Wade quotes, which outlined the additional unaffordable works for approx £60,000 and were referenced innumerable times in correspondence as well as made clear by her RTM Solicitors in their letter of 2 July 2013 as the preferred and only contractor and budget to be appropriated for the upcoming works and her denial of the authenticity of the audio recording, MHML did not defend our position as regards the various accusations levied against it by the Respondent (Mrs Hillgarth). We only wished to have her denials on oath and in that we succeeded.
Therefore none of the various accusations were proved to the satisfaction of the Tribunal.
Which amply evidences MHML full agreement to relinquish managing Mitre House and appoint Maunder Taylor (exactly as we had offered to do in our covering letter with the June 2017 Quarterly Demands dated 7 June 2017:-
Due to continuing discontent from a few lessees and their application to the courts to dismiss Management citing various misdemeanors including “stealing lessees’ window repair monies, indecent exposure to a young lady sub- let tenant, requiring a lessee to have a Police escort to collect keys, making and doing additional works without reference to lessees, having £16,201 in Reserves as opposed to the predicted £11,243, false accounting by not identifying Surveyor’s fees and other fees and payments made, including those to Management for their additional workings and services performed for the benefit of all lessees, non-payment to a supplier, blackmail, abuse and rudeness”, we have proposed to these same lessees that we will step aside and offer them the Head Lease so they can run Mitre House the way they wish it be run and by whom.
The alternatives are not favorable. If we contest the charges in court and lose, an expensive Manager will be ap- pointed by the court to run Mitre House so denying any lessee the opportunity to appoint their preferred cheaper Agents or contractors. If and when we win, the toxic atmosphere at Mitre House will simply continue with no doubt