|
|
Post by walkmill on Jun 6, 2021 17:21:09 GMT
Thanks Mousey.. got a big "investment" in this one so keen to know when it might all get resolved.
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,422 
Likes: 5,656
|
Post by Mousey on Jul 28, 2021 12:30:51 GMT
DFL004 Court Update 28/7/2021:
Two-hour Costs and Case Management Conference hearing this morning before District Judge Augustine Rouine.
The claimant, the borrowing companies director Mr LW, is understood to be pursuing (inter alia) a misrepresentation claim against Lendy & SSSHL and a claim against the receivers alleging sale of the property at an undervalue.
Total costs budgeted: Claimant: £436,630.90 (includes provisional disclosure figure). For D1&D2 (Lendy and SSSHL): £173,469.33 (excluding disclosure) For D3 (the receivers): £158,409.50 (excluding disclosure)
It was ordered that there should be two trials. One to examine the facts, the second to determine quantum. Ie the first trial could determine that there had been a sale at undervalue, the second trial would determine the damages, if any, that arise from that.
The first trial, with a time-estimate of 5 days, is scheduled to take place between October 2022 and March 2023.
A 2-hour-hearing to determine issues surrounding disclosure will take place on the first available date between Aug 16th and Nov 30th 2021.
|
|
|
|
Post by brummiefred on Jul 28, 2021 13:37:40 GMT
Whilst I would gladly agree with LW that the property was sold undervalue, am I wrong in remembering that LW was outbid by the eventual buyer?
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,422
Likes: 5,656
|
Post by Mousey on Jul 28, 2021 13:59:47 GMT
Whilst I would gladly agree with LW that the property was sold undervalue, am I wrong in remembering that LW was outbid by the eventual buyer? Sorry to clarify: To fulfil planning conditions the flats needed to be sold with parking. The flats were in a building ('Factory') owned by the borrowing company, and the car parking spaces were in a building ('Car Park') owned by the borrowing companies director in a personal capacity.
It is understood, from written submissions dated December 2020, that £7.3m had been attached to the value of Factory and £200,000 to the Car Park. As the Car Park is said to unlock the entire development, it is claimed that £200k does not represent the so-called marriage value that exists in the Car Park. It is this purported undervalue that is in contention in this claim.
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,422
Likes: 5,656
|
Post by Mousey on Oct 28, 2021 20:08:30 GMT
The borrowing company is in the London County Court for a 30-minute Companies Application tomorrow.
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,422
Likes: 5,656
|
Post by Mousey on Dec 13, 2021 16:59:19 GMT
Hearing tomorrow  |
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,422
Likes: 5,656
|
Post by Mousey on Dec 14, 2021 13:49:51 GMT
This is an application by Lendy and SSSHL for summary judgment on three issues. A total of 6 issues had been raised by the borrowing companies director Mr LW which are currently due to be decided at trial in November 2022. In simple terms Lendy (&SSSHL) are saying the three issued identified have no real prospect of success at trial and should be decided upon now.
More info later. The hearing is expected to restart at 2pm.
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,422
Likes: 5,656
|
Post by Mousey on Dec 15, 2021 18:34:10 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by rooster on Dec 16, 2021 22:49:54 GMT
Just to report, the link errors with "You do not have permission to access this post."
|
|
Village Idiot
Member of DD Central
This poster will self destruct after 3000 posts....
Posts: 2,779
Likes: 2,820
|
Post by Village Idiot on Dec 16, 2021 23:13:40 GMT
Just to report, the link errors with "You do not have permission to access this post." The link is to DDc. You appear not to have 'joined' your post count is high enough so you could if you wished. Edit link to join
|
|
oddis
Posts: 29
Likes: 13
|
Post by oddis on Dec 17, 2021 6:58:15 GMT
Thanks Mousey.
I came across your website and read what you wrote about the hearing. What a mess. Seems like Lendy's lawyer is trying to pass the buck on to the lenders....
|
|
elsee
Member of DD Central
Retired:D
Posts: 194 
Likes: 108
|
Post by elsee on Jan 12, 2022 12:22:55 GMT
Hi Mousey, need your help. I've searched the net but can't find the judgement. Was it handed down? thanks
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,422
Likes: 5,656
|
Post by Mousey on Jan 12, 2022 13:13:48 GMT
Hi Mousey, need your help. I've searched the net but can't find the judgement. Was it handed down? thanks The judgment was unlawfully handed down in private and therefore the public are unaware of the decision of the court. The court is actively trying to cover up its mistake. I was initially told: "As your email dated 16/12/21 (11.33) could not be accessed or printed, I am sorry to say that the court was not aware of your interest to attend the hearing and therefore would not of had your information to inform you or provide you access to the hearing."This e-mail contained a request to join the hearing and an application for the parties written submissions. I'm next told: "Looking back at the email sent on 16/12/22 it appears I was able to gain access to my emails intermittently in the morning, so I had indeed forwarded your email to Judge but failed to print or make a note of your contact details of which I deeply apologise and it was never my intention to exclude you from the hearing."
So both the court clerk and the judge had my details to attend. The judge must have received my e-mail because the court granted my application. I also received this confusing message from the court: "As I did not have your contact details to hand I also enquired with [claimants solicitor] if he had your contact details and if so if he could also inform you of the same and to send you the link to the Microsoft Teams should the hearing have continued in this manner and as the only information available for yourself was your email the Judge was unable to call you to include you in by way of BT Meet me."One minute they don't have my contact details, the next they do have my contact details? The claimants solicitor did contact me as it happens: I have just been contacted by telephone by HHJ Rawling’s clerk, [LS].
[LS] tells me that unfortunately the Court is experiencing problems with its servers, meaning they are unable to send/receive emails and may not be able to connect to the hearing via MS Teams.
She has asked me to forward the details of today’s hearing (if it proceeds by MS Teams) to you. These are set out below.
Unfortunately, it might not be possible for the hearing to proceed via MS Teams and [LS] does not anticipate being able to receive any emails from you in advance. If the Court cannot join the hearing via MS Teams, she tells me that it will instead proceed via BT MeetMe (i.e. by telephone). She will not be able to add you to that call in advance of the hearing.
"She will not be able to add you to that call in advance of the hearing." means that 1hr 40mins before the hearing they had already decided to exclude me. It is my position that this decision was unlawful. Eurgh. Sorry for the rant.
|
|
ptr120
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,184
Likes: 1,311
|
Post by ptr120 on Jan 12, 2022 16:58:08 GMT
That is rather despicable Mousey . Will you be making your feelings known to the court service? |
|
|
|
Post by pjt1 on Jan 14, 2022 7:52:47 GMT
Presumably it couldn’t be reported until agreed and released by the Court anyway?
|
|
