Michael Veluppillai (Petitioner) v Anushiya Veluppillai and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Mostyn |
| Judgment Date | 29 October 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] EWHC 3095 (Fam) |
| Docket Number | Case No: FD13D05270 |
| Court | Family Division |
| Date | 29 October 2015 |
[2015] EWHC 3095 (Fam)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice Mostyn
Case No: FD13D05270
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
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.
A warrant, not backed for bail, for the arrest of the husband has been issued by the magistrates' court.
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.
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"
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."
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 …."
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."
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.
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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bloom v Bloom (publication of un-anonymised judgment)
...number of cases, including A v A; B v B and W v W (ancillary relief: non-disclosure)[2003] EWHC 2254 (Fam). Veluppillai v Velluppillai[2015] EWHC 3095 (Fam) had made a wider public policy point with which the court agreed, noting that it was actually in the public interest for iniquitous co......
-
Financial Remedies
...[1976] Fam 335; H v H (Financial Relief: Conduct) [1999] 1 FCR 225. 77 C v T [2009] All ER (D) 43 and Veluppillai v Veluppillai [2015] EWHC 3095 (Fam). 78 Wachtel v Wachtel [1973] 1 All ER 829. 72 The Single Family Court: A Practitioner’s Handbook 2.8.5 Maintenance pending suit An order for......