Page 594 - FINAL MASTER 616pp 20-6-19 SOUND

-17- 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 __________________________________________________________________________________ (C) Claim for misappropriation and/or conversion of monies owed to the Claimant 41. mrs hillgarth was informed by an e-mail dated 1 June 2014 that (as a 25% shareholder of mhml) she could imminently expect an mhml dividend of approximately £3,500, payable out of the company’s profit on lease extensions. She has received no such dividend. A Considered response: Mrs HiLLGArTH oWed MHML For A verY overdUe deBT, noT For THe FirsT TiMe, And despiTe MAnY reqUesTs To pAY, sHe reFUsed. MHML did noT MAKe AnY reFerenCe ever To A £3500 dividend \[Don't forget that once Segar's and my Lease extension monies arrive in our Management account (mid August latest), there will be another pay out to all of us of around £3500 meaning we've doubled our investment in the Head Lease in less than 3 years..... not a bad return.\] As MHML HAs never ever pAid A dividend To AnY direCTor, ConseqUenTLY THis ACCUsATion is ALso denied 42. Not only has the Claimant received no dividend, but she has now received formal notice that the First Defendant is insolvent and that the Second and Fourth Defendants are making ar- rangements for the dissolution of the First Defendant. The Claimant believes that the purpose of such dissolution is to avoid the liabilities incurred by the First Defendant to the Claimant and other leaseholders. A Considered response: sinCe MHML WAs repLACed BY A “MAnAGer” on 26 JUne 2017 And donATed THe HeAd LeAse (iTs onLY AsseT) For niL ConsiderATion, THere WAs no FUrTHer reAson To CArrY on TrAdinG As noT onLY did iT HAve no AsseTs BUT ALso no inCoMe As iT WAs no LonGer CHArGinG For iTs serviCes To THe MiTre HoUse serviCe CHArGe. HenCe THe oBvioUs deCision To CLose iT 43. The Second and the Fourth Defendants have unlawfully, in bad faith, and in breach of their fiduciary and other statutory duties depleted the reserves of the First Defendant (in particular by means of fees and expenses paid to themselves or associated parties) so that the First Defen- dant is no longer in a position to pay a dividend or its debts to the Claimant. A Considered response: THere Were no reserves To depLeTe pArTiCULArs 44. Closing accounts (in anticipation of dissolution) filed at Companies house by the First De- fendant indicate that the cash reserves of the First Defendant, deriving inter alia from lease ex- tensions by certain of the leaseholders, (and from which the Claimant might reasonably have expected a dividend), have since June 2017 been depleted by the directors by almost £6,000. PleaSe reFer To aTTaCheD “AddendA/FUrTHer reFerenCes” iN SuPPorT oF argumeNT