Page 593 - xxxxxx9_BEGG_ALL_MASTER to Add to

-18-
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
__________________________________________________________________________________
Since the First Defendant ceased to provide management services in June 2017 it is not clear why the First Defendant would need to incur any further expense after that date or at all.
A Considered response: THere Were no reserves To depLeTe And AnY FUnds in exisTenCe Were Used To pAY oFF AnY CrediTors And CosTs
45. as a result of the misfeasance of the Second and Fourth Defendants the Claimant has suf- fered loss and damage. accordingly the Claimant now seeks reimbursement of the sum of £3,500 to which she would have been entitled but for the misappropriation by the Second and Fourth Defendants of assets and other monies owned by the First Defendant.
A Considered response: THere Are no reserves And THe BAnK ACCoUnT CLosed
(d) Claim for damages for deceit
45. as a consequence of the fraudulent actions of the Defendants the Claimant has incurred substantial legal fees as well as experts fees in order to investigate and expose the fraud and otherwise as referred to above. The extent of those fees is continuing and will be assessed at the date of trial.
A Considered response: HAd Mrs HiLLGArTH ACCepTed oFFers To oBLiGe sHe WoULd noT HAve rUn Up CosTs And HAd sHe AvAiLed HerseLF oF oUr GovernMenT Approved prs sCHeMe AGAin sHe WoULd noT HAve enTAiLed CosTs
piercing of the corporate veil - personal liability of the second Third and Fourth defendants
46. By reason of the deliberate actions of the Second, Third and Fourth Defendants, the First Defendant is insolvent and incapable of paying its debts as they fall due. The Second, Third and Fourth Defendants, having acted fraudulently, in bad faith, and in breach of their fiduciary duties as directors, and for an unlawful purpose as set out above, are not entitled to the protec- tion of limited liability or to rely on the separate legal personality of the First Defendant. The Claimant therefore claims that the Second, Third and Fourth Defendants are personally liable to the Claimant for payment of the sums referred to in paragraph 47 below.
47. summary
in consideration of the facts referred to above the Claimant claims damages, costs, losses and
interest (limited in aggregate to £25,000) as follows:
PleaSe reFer To aTTaCheD “AddendA/FUrTHer reFerenCes” iN SuPPorT oF argumeNT