Page 579 - FINAL MASTER 616pp 20-6-19

-2-
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: Mr KArUpiAH’s dAUGHTer does noT reside in FLAT 2 indiCATinG YeT AnoTHer erroneoUs “snoopinG” ACCUsATion MAde BY Mrs HiLLGArTH FoLLoWinG A previoUs erroneoUs “snoopinG” ACCUsATion THAT Mr KArUpiAH WAs sUB-LeTTinG His FLAT 2 UsinG AirBnB - BoTH ToTALLY UnTrUe
Mr KArUpiAH resiGned As A direCTor oF MHML in 2016 For personAL reAsons
6. The Fourth Defendant is also a leaseholder (through Dima international limited) but is not resident at mitre house. he is a certified accountant who currently prepares the accounts of mhml. he has at all material times been (and remains) a shadow director of mhml, exercising managerial control of the First Defendant through his corporate directorship.
A Considered response: Mrs HiLLGArTH is ALso noT residenT AT MiTre HoUse BUT sUB-LeTs WiTHoUT GAininG perMission, reFUsinG To CoMpLY WiTH Her LeAse CovenAnTs, HAs perMiTTed TenAnTs To inCLUde doGs And CATs And HAs siGned oFF TenAnCY AGreeMenTs sTATinG THAT ALL And AnY ConsenTs HAve Been GrAnTed - WHiCH WAs UnTrUe As no reqUesT For ConsenT HAd ever Been reqUesTed nor GrAnTed And one oF THe reAson sHe HoLds GrievAnCes AGAinsT MHML
7. The management of mitre house by mhml (through the Second Defendant) caused serious tensions with the other leaseholders of mitre house, as well as between the individual share- holders of mhml themselves. The Claimant, michele hillgarth, was removed by her co-direc- tors as a director of mhml on 18 September 2014. however she remained a 25% shareholder of mhml.
TA Considered response: THe onLY Tension WAs BeTWeen Mrs HiLLGArTH And MHML dUe To THe reAson sTATed ABove - FAiLUre To CoMpLY WiTH LeAse CovenAnTs And one oF THe reAsons sHe WAs reMoved As A direCTor oF MHML - HoW CoULd MHML insisT on Lessees oBeYinG or CoMpLYinG WiTH LAndLord reqUesTs oF AnY Kind iF one oF THeir oWn direCTors reFUsed To do so?
8. These tensions came to a head in 2014 in the context of a major refurbishment project (“the 2014 project”) which was carried out at mitre house in the autumn of that year. The 2014 pro- ject was conducted fraudulently by the Defendants, who abused their fiduciary position as own- ers of the head lease and as managers of mitre house to the detriment of the Claimant and all the other leaseholders at mitre house. Full particulars of the fraudulent conduct are pleaded at paragraphs 25 et seq below.
A Considered response: THis ToTALLY UnTrUe. MHML AdHered To ALL And AnY PleaSe reFer To aTTaCheD “AddendA/FUrTHer reFerenCes” iN SuPPorT oF argumeNT