The claim is against the first defendant (person) and also will hopefully with the courts permission see the inclusion of a second defendant (Charity Ltd Company). First defendant set-up the second defendant. For the (Charity Ltd Company) there are 2 directors, firstly the first defendant and secondly another limited company. That other limited company directors being the first defendant and one other. Hopefully that makes sense. The first defendant is saying that if I claim against him (which I am doing) he has the full backing of the second defendant regarding support with costs as all that he was doing was simply acting as a conduit for the transfer of £13,500 from the donor to the charity Ltd Company. So if this is the case he will be utilising the funds that the claimant entrusted to him in order to contribute to his defence costs. Surely that can’t be right as it is these very funds that are the subject of the claim?
Understood, so he uses the funds entrusted by the claimant to him (the subject of the claim) to defend himself which will effectively run the balance sheet to zero and he then dissolve the company so that there is no recourse to the company should a judgement be made in the claimant's favour against the company.
I have with your guidance re N244 hopefully added the company as a second defendant. I guess if the company had been set up including the claimant as a director ie with a vested interest in the charity company then it would be different, but the claimant
Keep hitting return!!!... ignore above will start again
I have with your guidance re N244 hopefully added the company as a second defendant . I guess if the company had been set up including the claimant as a director ie with a vested interest in the charity company then it would be different, but the claimant did not do this, also he has not set it up as a charity (yet) and so there are no trustees and so I guess he can do what he likes with the money as effectively it is his, which is exactly the point of my claim. Is there a way of freezing assets pending a hearing ... guess not but thought I would ask.