username

password

Garden CourtCafcass advertimage of 4 Paper Buildings logoHind Court1 Garden CourtHarcourt ChambersCoram ChambersDNA Legalsite by Zehuti

Home > Judgments > 2015 archive

Veluppillai & Others v Veluppillai [2015] EWHC 3095 (Fam)

A wife’s claim for financial remedy involving extreme litigation misconduct by the husband.

The net assets of the parties' marriage amounted to around £1.3m. The matter was listed before Mostyn J in the High Court with a time estimate of 4 days as a result of the conduct of the husband. Since the claim was commenced in September 2012 there were over 30 hearings including four appeals mounted by the husband. This deluge was caused by the husband's extreme litigation misconduct. In parallel proceedings concerning a bogus loan asserted by the husband's sister he made threats to kill against the wife and her counsel for which he was committed to prison for contempt. In the ancillary relief proceedings he was removed from the courtroom on at a least one occasion by security staff. He was repeatedly warned by judges about his unpleasant and menacing conduct in court. On one occasion he assaulted the wife's counsel and the wife in court for which he was later convicted of assault in the magistrates' court. The husband skipped his sentencing hearing and fled abroad from where he bombarded the court with abusive emails claiming that he had a fatal illness and demanded that the proceedings be adjourned indefinitely. In the course of the proceedings he entered into a number of transactions designed to defeat the wife's claims. A warrant, not backed for bail, for the arrest of the husband was issued by the magistrates' court.

The remorseless and threatening conduct of the husband resulted in the CFC sending the case for trial at the High Court. Moylan J ordered that the husband's application be heard on 22 October 2015 and it came before Roberts J. She dismissed an application by the husband to adjourn  because the medical certificate, he provided on that occasion, fell far short of the standard needed for an adjournment of a final hearing.

Roberts J did however provide in her order for the husband to be able to contact the court to be able to participate in the hearing by video or telephone.
When the matter came before Mostyn J for trial the husband again sought an adjournment on the basis of ill health but Mostyn J refused the application summarily as once again the medical evidence provided fell below the required standard.

Notwithstanding that the husband had been invited to participate by telephone or video he did not seek to do so but rather kept up a stream of abusive emails to Mostyn J's clerk.

The evidence of the wife and the conduct of the husband within these proceedings (including the disposal by him of the wife's jewellery) led Mostyn J to draw the inference that the husband had undisclosed assets, either held by his sister or children, or elsewhere, of at least £500,000.

The wife sought an order for costs. She had been funded by legal aid and Mostyn J held that this was a case where the husband's conduct had been so abysmal that he should, within the terms of FPR 28.3(6) and (7) pay all of those costs.

Mostyn J ordered that that the costs be charged on Flat 18, Hayden Court, Feltham, which he had already found to be beneficially owned by the husband. Mostyn J held that he was entitled under section 3(1) of the Charging Orders Act 1979 to make an immediate absolute order.

The judge went onto find that the husband had made numerous applications which were totally without merit. In recent times he had made three totally meritless applications for an adjournment. He had bombarded the court with emails, and these too, Mostyn J held, were to be treated as applications for the purposes of making a civil restraint order under FPR4.8 and PD4A. In the circumstances Mostyn J made an extended civil restraint order pursuant to PD4A para 3.1 lasting for two years from the date of the order giving effect to this judgment. The identified judge as mentioned in para 3.2(a) was to be Mostyn J. The judge held that the application notice for permission to make a substantive application under para 3.5 must be in Form D11, and the relevant fee must be paid. The application may only be made by the husband attending the issue counter in person; applications by email would not be accepted. They were not to be read and would be destroyed.

Mostyn J referred to his earlier decisions of  DL v SL [2015] EWHC 2621 (Fam)  and Appleton & Anor v News Group Newspapers Ltd & Anor [2015] EWHC 2689 (Fam) where he explained that the right to privacy in the hearing of an ancillary relief application would be forfeited on proof of iniquity. Mostyn J held that there was no doubt the husband's misconduct in this matter had been at the extreme end of the spectrum and that it was in the public interest for his conduct to be exposed. The judge found that the public should be aware of the scale of problems that courts administering justice and implementing the rule of law have to face at the hands of unrepresented and malevolent litigants determined to do everything they can to destroy the process.

Mostyn J further  directed that all of the husband's emails to this court since 8 October 2015 be sent to the Commissioner of the Police for the Metropolis for him to decide if any of the threats contained in them amounted to criminal offences.

Summary by Joseph Moore, barrister, 1 Garden Court Family Law Chambers
________________________

Neutral Citation Number: [2015] EWHC 3095 (Fam)

Case No: FD13D05270
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date: 29/10/2015

Before :

MR JUSTICE MOSTYN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :

Michael Veluppillai 
Petitioner

And 

Anushiya Veluppillai (1)
Sureka  Veluppillai (2)
Arun Veluppillai (3)
AVSVSVMV Expert Solutions Ltd (4)

Respondents


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Jennifer Lee (instructed by Alaga & Co) for the First Respondent /Applicant
The Petitioner, Second, Third and Fourth Respondents were not present or represented
Hearing date: 26 October 2015
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Approved Judgment
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.


.............................

MR JUSTICE MOSTYN

 

 
Mr Justice Mostyn:
 
1. This is my judgment on the applicant wife's claim for ancillary relief. According to her counsel's financial schedule the net assets amount to around £1.3m. It is a routine needs case following a 20 year marriage. One might ask therefore: why it is listed for hearing in the High Court with a time estimate of 4 days and where the wife has incurred costs on the indemnity basis of around £150,000?  The answer is the conduct of the husband. It has been truly abysmal. Since the claim was commenced in September 2012 there have been over 30 hearings including four appeals mounted by the husband. This deluge has been caused by the husband's extreme litigation misconduct. In parallel proceedings concerning a bogus loan asserted by his sister he made threats to kill against the wife and her counsel for which he was committed to prison for contempt. In these ancillary relief proceedings he has been removed from the courtroom on at a least one occasion by security staff. He has been repeatedly warned by judges about his unpleasant menacing conduct in court. On one occasion he assaulted the wife's counsel and the wife in court for which he was later convicted of assault in the magistrates' court. He skipped his sentencing hearing and fled abroad from where he has bombarded the court with abusive emails claiming that he has a fatal illness and demanding that the proceedings be adjourned indefinitely. In the course of the proceedings he has entered into a number of transactions designed to defeat the wife's claims.

2. A warrant, not backed for bail, for the arrest of the husband has been issued by the magistrates' court.

3. The husband's attitude is well summed up by his text to the wife on 10 August 2012 when he called her a "patty bitch" and said "I sold your jewellery for £40,000 what can you do? Clothes shoes I went and gave to my sister. I will put you on the street without anything". In the light of the remorseless and threatening conduct of the husband the CFC has sent this case for trial to this court. I heard it on 26 October 2015.

4. The final hearing for 26 October 2015 was fixed in early June 2015. The PTR was fixed before Moylan J on 8 October 2015. The husband did not attend. Instead on that day he sent an email to the court claiming that he was suffering from a fatal illness and seeking confirmation that "no hearings are currently scheduled". Moylan J ordered that the matter remain listed and gave final directions for trial. On 16 October 2015 the husband made an application in Form D11 seeking adjournment of the hearing "until further notice". In the form he says "MOYLAN You have been cruel AND EVIL person to ask a CRITICALLY ILL PERSON to make this application. BE A HUMAN BEING". To the form he attached a "medical certificate" from Dr Dobray Maria of Budapest, Hungary. This states:

"I, Dr Dobray Maria, after careful personal examination of the case and previous medical certificates hereby certify that Mr Michael Veluppillai has been suffering from unpredictable repeated seizures for last 4 months due to epilepsy or other unknown causes that I consider that a indefinite period of absence from travelling, attending court hearings, work or any other similar activities effective from 2015, October 15 is necessary to be extended for the restoration of his health"

5. Moylan J ordered that the husband's application be heard on 22 October 2015 and it came before Roberts J. She dismissed the application, which was hardly surprising given that the medical certificate, if authentic (which I doubt), fell far short of the standard needed for an adjournment of a final hearing. That standard has been definitively expressed by Norris J in Levy v Ellis-Carr & Others [2012] EWHC 63 (Ch.) at para 36 where he said:

"In my judgment [the doctor's letter] falls far short of the medical evidence required to demonstrate that the party is unable to attend a hearing and participate in the trial. Such evidence should identify the medical attendant and give details of his familiarity with the party's medical condition (detailing all recent consultations), should identify with particularity what the patient's medical condition is and the features of that condition which (in the medical attendant's opinion) prevent participation in the trial process, should provide a reasoned prognosis and should give the court some confidence that what is being expressed is an independent opinion after a proper examination. It is being tendered as expert evidence. The court can then consider what weight to attach to that opinion, and what arrangements might be made (short of an adjournment) to accommodate a party's difficulties. No judge is bound to accept expert evidence: even a proper medical report falls to be considered simply as part of the material as a whole (including the previous conduct of the case). The letter on which the Appellant relies is wholly inadequate."

6. Roberts J did however provide in her order for the husband to be able to contact the court to be able to participate in the hearing by video or telephone. Her order in unsealed form was emailed to the husband by the wife's solicitors on the same day at 5:53 pm. If the husband was dissatisfied with it then his only recourse was to appeal. However on Saturday 24 October the husband submitted a yet further application in Form D11 seeking an adjournment relying on the same medical evidence. It is obviously abusive for repeated applications to be made in relation for the same relief where there has been no material change of circumstances. If an application for relief has been dismissed on the merits then absent a change of circumstances (or the original order being shown to have been based on misstated facts or material non-disclosure) the only proper way of challenging it is by way of appeal: see Arif v Zar & Anor [2012] EWCA Civ 986 at para 27, per Patten LJ. Therefore, I summarily rejected the further application and proceeded to hear the wife's ancillary relief application. Notwithstanding that the husband had been invited to participate by telephone or video he did not seek to do so but rather kept up a stream of abusive emails to my clerk. For example on 27 October 2016 (while this judgment was under consideration) 1 at 08:09 he emailed my clerk and the clerk of the rules in these (exact) terms:

"ANOTHONY, CAN YOU BLOODY PASS ONTO THIS EMAIL TO MOSTYN WHO HAS BEEN DEALING WITH OTHER PARTY CROOKS ALAGA & CO AND PROSITUTE ANUSHIYA VELUPPILLAI. WHO HAVE GOT HISTORY OF STELING, DISHONEST, COMMITING FRAUD IF YOU HAVE BEEN RUNNING THE HEARING WITHOUT TELLING ME I WILL F**k YOU ALL MOSTYN  I WANT THE FUCKING ANSWER NOW. WHERE IOS MY F**KING ORDER AND YOU HAVE BEEN MY HEALTH WORSE THAN IT IS. WANTS THE RESPONSE AND F***ING UPDATE NOW CROOKS …."

7. And at 08:16 he followed it up with:

"THIS IS MIS-CARRIAGE OF JUSTIC MOSTYN – I WANT THE F**KING UPDATE ON WHAT IS HAPPENING YOU F**KING TALIKIUNG MY HARTD EARNED MONEY MOSTYN WHO THE HELL ARE YOU MAKING DECISION ON MY MONEY. HAVE YOU EARNED THIS FUCKING MONEY. YOU ALL MUST BE EXECUTED IN A GAS CHAMBER. I WANT THE FUCKING RESPONSE NOW."

8. I read the careful skeleton argument, chronology and asset schedules of Miss Lee and heard the wife give oral evidence.  The two adult children and the company AVSVSVMV Expert Solutions Ltd did not attend the hearing notwithstanding that they had been joined as parties to the proceedings.

9. I attach to this judgment Miss Lee's chronology which I am satisfied accurately and fairly sets out the history. From this I need only pick out a handful of matters, on which I make findings as follows: 

i) I am satisfied that the husband is a highly talented man in the field of IT. Within a one year period he was able to accumulate a sizeable sum in his newly formed company AVSVAVMV Expert Solutions Ltd. From that company he transferred in a short period the sum of €253,000 to his children. This was to protect his money; it was not a genuine outright transfer.

ii) That money was used in part to buy the property at Flat 18, Hayden Court, Feltham. Exclusive of the mortgage the sum of £135,694 was provided to buy it. On the evidence of the wife I am satisfied that this derived solely from the husband. There is no evidence that either the son or the sister had either the means or the capacity to raise this money. I am satisfied that as the contributor of the (non-mortgage) purchase monies the husband is the sole beneficial owner of this property, and I so declare. This finding is binding on the son as he is a party. It is also binding on the sister as DJ Hess on 16 December 2013 made an order requiring the sister to file a witness statement if she wished to claim any legal or beneficial interest in the property in issue. That order was served on her, but she filed no evidence. She has also failed to comply with a third party disclosure order. She is therefore estopped from denying the finding I have made.

iii) The wife told me that her daughter (who seems recently to have shifted her allegiance) had told her that she (the daughter) held at least £200,000 which had been placed with her by the husband. I accept this evidence. It is obvious that the husband has very considerable funds which he has chosen not to disclose within these proceedings.

iv) As mentioned above, the husband has sold all of the wife's jewellery, which was of some considerable value.

v) The skill of the husband, the evidence of the wife, and the conduct of the husband within these proceedings (including the disposal by him of the wife's jewellery) lead me to draw the inference that the husband has undisclosed assets, either held by his sister or children, or elsewhere, of at least £500,000. In reaching this conclusion I have applied the relevant principles relating to the treatment of non-disclosure of assets as set out by me in NG v SG (Appeal: Non-disclosure) [2011] EWHC 3270 (Fam). The figure of £500,000 is in my estimation a very conservative appraisal. I reach this conclusion for the following reasons:

a) As mentioned above in July 2011 the company AVSVAVMV Expert Solutions Ltd was formed. Between September and November 2012 the husband was able to transfer to his children €253,000 from the company. Thus in a short period at least this amount, and probably a great deal more, was accumulated within the company. It is very reasonable to assume that similar sums have been accumulated there or elsewhere since that date.

b) As mentioned above this money was in all likelihood the source of the completion monies of £135,694 for Flat 18, Hayden Court, Feltham.

c) Again, as mentioned above, the wife told me that her daughter was holding at least £200,000 which derived from the husband.

d) The husband has appropriated (and claimed to have sold) the wife's jewellery for £40,000. In addition he has retained other chattels which cost around £150,000, but which are unlikely to be worth that sum. The husband should be treated as having at least £100,000 worth of matrimonial personalty.

e) The husband has adamantly refused to give disclosure and has engaged in a number of frankly absurd manoeuvres to try and defeat the wife's claims. Similarly the children and the company (the 2nd – 4th respondents) and the husband's sister have failed to comply with disclosure orders. Where there is a refusal to give disclosure the inevitable inference is that there are undisclosed assets that the non-discloser is trying to protect, and this is particularly so where the principal non-discloser engages in other manoeuvres  to seek to defeat the claim.  

f) In  NG v SG (Appeal: Non-disclosure) at para 16(viii) I said, citing Thorpe J in F v F [1994] 3 FLR 359, that:

"The Court must be astute to ensure that a non-discloser should not be able to procure a result from his non-disclosure better than that which would be ordered if the truth were told. If the result is an order that is unfair to the non-discloser it is better that than that the Court should be drawn into making an order that is unfair to the Claimant 2."

In fact I do not consider that in finding that the husband has at least £500,000 of undisclosed assets there is any appreciable risk of unfairness to him. I repeat that I am satisfied that this is a conservative estimate. 

10. My tabulation of the assets is as follows:

7 McKenzie Way, Epsom (husband's name)

1,000,000

less mortgage

(478,146)

less costs of sale

(25,000)

 

496,854

 

 

Flat 18, Hayden Court, Feltham (son's and sister's name)

225,000

less mortgage

(70,470)

less costs of sale

(5,625)

 

148,905

 

 

68 Poplar Road, Ashford (joint names)

475,000

less mortgage

(282,837)

less costs of sale

(11,875)

 

180,288

 

 

Madathadi Rd, Vavuniya, Sri Lanka (wife's name)

12,749

less costs of sale

(382)

 

12,367

 

 

Silva Mawatte, Colombo, Sri Lanka (husband's name)

60,000

less costs of sale

(3,150)

 

56,850

 

 

Husband's BT pension

36,304

Husband's Oracle pension

51,714

 

88,018

 

 

Husband's undisclosed assets

500,000

 

 

TOTAL

1,483,282



11. The wife's open offer seeks (in effect):

i) The transfer of the legal title to and the equity in 7 McKenzie Way: £496,854

ii) The transfer of the legal title to and the equity in 68 Poplar Road: £180,288

iii) Retention of her own Sri Lankan property: £12,367

iv) A 50% share of the husband's pensions (expressed as a 85.1% share of the Oracle pension): £44,009

v) Total: £733,518, or 49.5% of the assets.

12. The wife does not seek a periodical payments order, although the scale of the capital would not lead one to think that it is sufficient for a clean break. She is realistic enough to accept that enforcement of a maintenance order against this husband would be a futile endeavour. Her plan is to sell 7 McKenzie Way and to use the proceeds (a) to pay off the mortgage on 68 Poplar Road and (b) to provide a fund to enable her, inter alia, to set up a beautician's business. Up to now she has been working in a supermarket but an arthritic condition has brought that to an end. She is willing to accept the challenge of independent life and for this reason wishes closure between herself and the husband. Inclusive of the pension share she would have a fund of free non-housing capital of just over £500,000 to provide for her future for the rest of her life. That would provide a net Duxbury income of a little under £25,000 annually, which is barely sufficient to meet her needs. Thus she will definitely need to earn additional sums. 

13. In my judgment her proposal is eminently reasonable and fair and should be adopted by me. On the transfer of the two properties to her there will be a clean break between her and the husband in life and death.

14. The wife seeks an order for costs. Up to now she has been funded by legal aid. If she obtains an order for costs (assessed at normal commercial rates) she will be able to abandon her legal aid certificate. This is, as I have said before, a very reasonable course. Legal aid firms depend for their survival for inter partes costs orders being made. Her solicitor's charges, if this were not a legal aid case, would be £146,609 including VAT. This is a case where the husband's conduct has been so abysmal that he should, within the terms of FPR 28.3(6) and (7) pay all of those costs. This is a case which should have been resolved with minimal costs.

15. I therefore order that the husband shall pay the wife's costs assessed in the sum of £146,609 (to include any entitlement under any prior orders). I order that this sum shall be charged on Flat 18, Hayden Court, Feltham, which I have already found to be beneficially owned by the husband. I am entitled under section 3(1) of the Charging Orders Act 1979 to make an immediate absolute order, and I do so.    

16. It is plain from the chronology that the husband has made numerous applications which are totally without merit. In recent times he has made three totally meritless applications for an adjournment. He has bombarded the court with emails, and these too are to be treated as applications for the purposes of making a civil restraint order under FPR4.8 and PD4A. In the circumstances I make an extended civil restraint order pursuant to PD4A para 3.1. It will last for two years from the date of the order giving effect to this judgment. The identified judge as mentioned in para 3.2(a) will be me. The application notice for permission to make a substantive application under para 3.5 must be in Form D11, and the relevant fee must be paid. The application may only be made by the husband attending the issue counter in person; applications by email will not be accepted. They will not be read and will be destroyed.

17. In my decisions of  DL v SL [2015] EWHC 2621 (Fam)  and Appleton & Anor v News Group Newspapers Ltd & Anor [2015] EWHC 2689 (Fam) I explained that the right to privacy in the hearing of an ancillary relief application would be forfeited on proof of iniquity. There is no doubt the husband's misconduct has been at the extreme end of the spectrum. It is in the public interest for his conduct to be exposed. The public should be aware of the scale of problems that courts administering justice and implementing the rule of law have to face at the hands of unrepresented and malevolent litigants determined to do everything they can to destroy the process. I appreciate that the wife, who is wholly innocent, will lose her rights to privacy by virtue of this judgment being published without anonymisation but in my opinion the public interest in the whole truth being known outweighs her privacy rights.

18. This judgment will therefore be published in full and without anonymisation.  I also direct that the husband shall not be sent a copy of it in draft before hand-down. That process is to allow minor typographical and other clerical errors to be corrected. I have no doubt that the husband will not properly deal with the task of clerical correction but would rather see it as an opportunity for a yet further barrage of emails.

19. I also direct that all of the husband's emails to this court since 8 October 2015 be sent to the Commissioner of the Police for the Metropolis for him to decide if any of the threats contained in them amount to criminal offences.

¬¬¬
CHRONOLOGY
20.10.1966  H born (now 49)

8.7.1967  W born (now 48)

31.7.1989  Marriage

6.5.1990  Sureka born (25)

1990 Purchase of 1st property, 12 Langdon Road, Eastham in joint names for £60K

23.06.1991  Arun born (24)

1995 Purchase of 2nd property 2 Lime Tree Drive, Ipswich for £80K, parties lived there

4.1999  Sale of Lime Tree Drive for £110K (net equity: £35k)

4.1999  Purchase of 68 Poplar Road, Ashford purchased in joint names for £220K using proceeds from Lime Tree Drive, parties lived there.

03.2002  Additional borrowing 68 Poplar Road for £285K

2002   Sale of 12 Langdon Road for £135K (net equity: £85K)

18.9.2002  Purchase of 7 McKenzie Way, Epsom for £620K, H's name, becomes the FMH

8.2004  Re-mortgage 7 McKenzie Way for £475K (paid into W's account which H opened)

2006  Parties purchase 74 1/6 Silva Mawatte, Colombo for £60K

6.3.2009  Separation (20 year marriage) (see H's petition, B5)
H brings W to India (under guise of travelling to USA) and leaves her there, stranded. H stores valuables from property at "Big Yellow Storage", W says worth £205,172.30. H then removed all items.

7 McKenzie Way rented out by H for £2,700 pm (see 26.2.2009 tenancy agreement, [E35])

H leaves the UK

07.2009  W manages to return to the UK, stays with friend

31.7.2009  W's petition

2.10.2009  W's Form A

11.12.2009  FDA – H did not attend

15.3.2010  H persuades W to withdraw divorce petition, gets her to sign a letter on assurance he would give her a property to live and jewellery. W later finds out he had forged documents in her name to send to court, solicitors and LSC.

Nov  2010  W assaulted by H, put in refuge

Nov 2010  W initiates petition again, H fails to engage

April 2011  W withdraws petition again, goes to Sri Lanka;  finds property rented out

June 2012  W returns to UK

7.2011  H incorporates AVSVAVMV Expert Solutions Ltd, an IT company. H sole director and shareholder

21.7.2012  Alleged 10 year tenancy agreement for 68 Poplar Rd for £440 pm (previous rent £1.5K pm) – to daughter and son in law

31.7.2012  H resigns as director [E43] [E94,95]

1.8.2012  Alleged 10 year tenancy agreement 7 McKenzie Way for £1,350 pm (previously £2,700 pm), H says 5 year term [E90]

3.8.2012  W's application for Non-Molestation Order and Occupation Order

8.8.2012  W moves into 7 McKenzie Way, property empty

10.8.2012  H sends W text message threatening to kill her and says sold her jewellery etc. [E33]

14.8.2012  W's third petition

20.8.2012  Charge for £350K put on 7 McKenzie Way in favour of H's sister Vasanthakumari, payable 14.8.2017 [E48]. H says this was because sister funded 11 years studies.

28.8.2012  W obtains NMO and Occupation Order re: 7 McKenzie Way, but ultimately unable to enforce

9.9.12  H attends 7 McKenzie Way, claims it is rented out (no document produced). W removed by police and becomes homeless

18.9.2012  W's Form A (current proceedings)

20.9.2012  Judgment in favour of H's sister against H

9 -11.2012  H transfers €253K to children from AVSVAVMV Expert Solutions Ltd HSBC account

10.2012  H incorporates Infrastructure Experts Consultancy. Later resigns and installs sister as director  

10.2012  Charge for £100K registered against 68 Poplar Road in favour of H's sister. H says this was because sister loaned £100K for purchase of 7 McKenzie Way

29.10.2012  Interim Charging Order in favour of H's sister against 68 Poplar Road for £100,594.99 [C1] pursuant to judgment of 20.9.2012

29.10.2012  W's application for orders under s.37 MCA

30.11.2012  DJ Cole - 3rd party disclosure and restraining H from placing further charges or dealing with bank accounts [C2]

14.12.2012  DJ Cole - 3rd party disclosure and restraining H [C03] – to consider applications at FDA

01.2013  H resigns from AVSVAVMV Expert Solutions Ltd and registers children as directors (after €253K transfers)

2.1.2013  W's application to set aside charge against 7 McKenzie Way

17.1.2013  FDA, DJ Taylor - Order setting aside charge against 7 McKenzie Way for £350K; restraining order on H re charges [C4]

DJ Taylor – Charge and Interim Charging Order re 69 Poplar Road set aside [C6]; no further applications by sister without permission and only upon prior notice to W

11.3.2013  Order 3rd party disclosure and restraining orders [C7]

24.3.2013  H's sister applies to restore charges against properties

13.5.2013  H's application to set aside all orders made in proceedings

28.5.2013  W's application for MPS

4.6.2013  Decree Nisi on W's petition [C10]

7.6.2013  DDJ Freeborough on H's sister applications for ICO against properties without notice to W – transferred to Kingston and Staines CC[C15]

11.6.2013  Possession hearing 68 Poplar Rd

17.6.2013  Possession hearing 7 McKenzie Way - adjourned

18.6.13  DJ Parker - H's application of 13.5.13 dismissed; H to file Form E by 4.7.13 with penal notice attached; hearing on 8/9 July reduced to 1 day for disclosure and MPS [C12]

8.7.2013  DDJ Freeborough – H receives trial bundle; H's application 24.6.13 dismissed; address for service henceforth by email to mveluppillai@live.com; list Final Hearing 7/8 Jan 2014 [C13]

9.7.2013  W's application to set aside transfers

5.8.2013  H's appeal against DN

6.8.2013  HHJ Atkins – directions on H's appeal [C15]

19.8.2013  DJ Cole – H leaves court having been warned about behaviour; 3rd party disclosure and restraining orders; list W's application to set aside transfer on first open day after 28 days; W's further evidence by 25.8.13; H's response by 14.9.13 [C16]

08.2013  H's appeal against order of 8.7.2013

22.8.2013  Transfer to PRFD to consider H's appeals [C18]

2.10.2013  HHJ Rylance - Order for sale 68 Poplar Road (never implemented)

15.10.2013  Order HHJ Plumstead – unless H files by 21.10.13 petition on 2 years separation, his appeals dated 5 and 13 Aug 2013 dismissed. If petition filed, W shall file acknowledgment consenting to petition. Upon pronouncement of DN in new petition, original petition stand dismissed but Form A treated as filed and served in new suit. H shall file and serve Form E by 26.11.2013, failing which he is debarred from filing further evidence [C19]

28.10.2013  DJ Smart - Hearing in Kingston re H's sister's application for charging order – no order made to join W today, any further application by H's sister to be on notice [C20]

30.10.2013  H's petition for divorce [B1]

12.2013  H pays out £25K from Natwest account 484

16.12.2013  Order DJ Hess – H removed from court building due to angry/menacing behaviour. H to answer W's Q're by 30.12.13; H to serve tax returns for 4/2011 – 4/2013 by 2.1.14; if H's sister  claims legal or beneficial interest in matrimonial property or that she is owed money by H, she shall file and serve statement in support of position, with documentary evidence and including application for joinder by 1.1.14. Likewise, son and daughter if they seek to challenge W's application to each file and serve statements setting out position, attaching doc evidence, and apply for joinder by 1.1.14 [C21]

17.12.2013  Infrastructure pays out £26,230 to Clifton Ingram LLP with ref: "Michael  Velluppillai" which H owed following Judgment in Croydon CC.

7.1.2014  DJ Hay – Final Hearing adjourned, no DN and no CJ available. Transfer to PRFD, H directed to file and serve statement setting out involvement/role within Infrastructure Experts Ltd. and to disclose bank statements for preceding 2 years by 21.1.14. On basis H has failed to respond to W's Q, H debarred from filing any further evidence save as above. [C23]

28.1.2014  DJ Smart – H's sister's application again for Interim Charging Order over properties without notice to W. Court refuses application for charging order re: 68 Poplar; refuses to restore legal charge over 7 McKenzie Way and declines to make interim charging order over same pending conclusion of AR proceedings; refuses to transfer sister's claim to be heard with AR proceedings insofar as they are pending in PRFD as PRFD does not have civil enforcement jurisdiction [C24]

13.2.2014  DJ Hess - Decree Nisi [B9]

DJ Hess – list CMC on 24.3.14 and Final Hearing on 28/29.4.14 before HHJ O'Dwyer [C26]

24.3.14  HHJ O'Dwyer  – W to file and serve any further evidence by 31.3.14; H to file and serve evidence in response by 7.4.14 (no permission for any further evidence apart from that provided herein); daughter, son and AVSVAVMV Expert Solutions Ltd joined, and shall file and serve any evidence on which they wish to rely re W's application to set aside transfers by 7.4.14; parties and witnesses shall attend hearing on 28.4.14 for XX [C27].

28/29.4.2014  HHJ O'Dwyer – final hearing adjourned. Daughter, son and AVSVAVMV Expert Solutions Ltd fail to attend. Daughter to file and serve medical evidence re fitness to attend by 5.5.14; son and daughter to disclose bank statements from Aug 2012 to date of accounts into which they received payments from 4th R HSBC acc. no. -4726 by 12.5.14, together with statements setting out current location of the funds with doc evidence in support; H's sister as director of AVSVAVMV Expert Solutions Ltd to disclose by 19.5.14 bank statements from Oct 2012 to date of NatWest acc. no. 8484; W's application to set aside transfers adjourned to final hearing; list for CMH on 26.6.14, and final hearing on 26.1.15 for 4 days [C29]

26.6.14  HHJ O'Dwyer – 2nd, 3rd, 4th R fail to attend. Time for daughter to comply re disclosure of bank statements by extended to 2.10.14; time for son to comply extended to no later than 4 weeks after personal service of order on him (he was on run from police), penal notice attached; H to file and serve an inventory list of items stored at Big Yellow Self Storage, details of insurance taken and date on which items removed by 31.7.14; H to file and serve legible copy of the deed document re: W's parent's property in Sri Lanka; W to respond by 10.9.14; W and H to file and serve any further evidence they intend to rely at final hearing by 10.9.14; list for CMH 6.10.14 [C32]

07.2014  Son and H's sister purchases Flat 18, Hayden Court, Feltham.

21.8.2014  DJ Smart – H removed from court having uttered threats to murder W and her counsel; money judgment of 20.9.12 set aside, claim be stayed until further order; W's application for joinder stayed until further order, matter referred to HHJ Mitchell with a view to proceedings against H for contempt [C35]

6.10.14  HHJ O'Dywer – 2nd, 3rd, 4th R fail to attend. All communications between H and W's solicitors to be by post only at 7 McKenzie Way. Time for daughter and son to comply re disclosure extended to 27.10.2014, penal notices attached. Should either party fail to comply court will consider making order debarring defaulting party from defending W's application re relevant transfers. H's sister to disclose original bank statements for Infrastructure from Feb 2012 (or date of opening of account) to date, by 27.10.2014. SJE re Madathadi Road, report by 15.12.14. W to file photocopy of her current passport. Statement of H dated 5.4.14 and draft orders dated 10.9.14 and 6.10.14 shall stand as his final evidence. All parties to attend final hearing listed on 26.1.15.  [C37]

6.11.2014  HHJ O'Dwyer – approves W's letter of instruction to SJE [C41]

9.12.2014  Decree Absolute [B10]

26 – 29.1.15  Final hearing – adjourned on 29.1.15 when H assaulted W and counsel. Daughter attends day 1 only, son and 4th R fail to attend. H's application for order debarring W from making further applications for disclosure and to discharge added respondents  refused. Time for son, daughter and H's sister to comply extended again to 5.2.15; W to file and serve narrative statement explaining photo of her and Mr Karthikeyan by 5.2.15; W to file and serve documentary evidence of outcome of insurance claim by Nicola Rooney and evidence of any monies received including the items subject to the claim and their value by 12.2.15; W's current passport extended 6.2.15; H may call his mother in accordance with her witness statement dated 24.12.13 on day 2 of final hearing; permission SJE for 7 McKenzie Way report by 27.2.15; H may apply to XX valuer of Madathadi Road; questions in writing by 6.2.15 and response by valuer by 20.2.15; transfer to High Court for Final hearing on first open date after 27.2.14 (t/e 4 days); parties to attend to give oral evidence; if H wishes to rely on health as an issue to file medical evidence by earliest of 12.3.15 or two weeks before Final hearing  [C47]

30.1.15  HHJ Mitchell – H committed to prison for an immediate term 28 days  for contempt in face of the court on 21 August 2014[C52]

21.4.15  Newton J – H's appeal against DA dismissed. H's appeal against order of HHJ O'Dwyer refusing to bar W from making applications for disclosure adjourned to PTR. Disclosures by BskyB and T-Systems in respect of H's employment or self-employment, SJE for 7 McKenzie Way (Barnard Marcus) and 68 Poplar (Swans), reports by 1.5.15 [C54] 

30.4.15  Newton J – W at liberty to instruct Haarts to value 68 Poplar Road and Gascoigne-Pee to value 7 McKenzie Way, reports by 15.5.15 [C57]

2-5.6.15  Newton J – Final hearing adjourned again, H's ex-parte application alleging notice not received. In any event evidence re valuations will not be available before the date scheduled for PTR, list for FH (t/e 4 days) First open date after 1.8.15, list for PTR on first open day after 1.7.15 [C58]

8.10.15  Moylan J – PTR, H sent email alleging due to fatal illness to "confirm no hearings currently scheduled", but H not made formal application, order that Final hearing remains listed for 4 days commencing 26.10.2015; W has permission to rely on valuation from Gascoigne Pees of 7 McKenzie Way, Swans of 68 Poplar Rd, valuation of S.Suresh of Madathadi Road; if H to make application to adjourn to issue by 16.10.2015; permission to serve H by email [C59]

22.10.15  Roberts J – H's application to adjourn final hearing dismissed

26.10.15  Mostyn J – final hearing

______________

1 These are just two out of many similar emails; he has sent 45 between 10:30 on 26 October and 08:10 on 28 October 2015

2 In the report at [2012] 1 FLR 1211 the second sentence has mysteriously been altered in a way that reverses its meaning. It states "If the result is an order that is unfair to the non-discloser it is better that the Court should be drawn into making an order that is unfair to the Claimant". Until it is corrected that part of the FLR report should not be relied on.