[DPS:4I:51DR001/001:E] RE: L10CL472 - 51 Draycott Place

Dear Sirs

We have conceded that the set aside should be allowed, mostly for natural justice reasons. The costs issues might capture whether CPR 39.3(5) are met, but we doubt it. The Defendant is not represented, and the application conceded before evidence prepared. As we have said before that aspect is very unlikely to take more than 15 minutes, and the vesting order can be made after an hour in our view.

Kind regards

Jason Kallis

F: +44 (0) 207 937 9202

M: +44 (0) 7969 691025

Vicarage House

58-60 Kensington Church Street

London W8 4DB

www.meralibeedle.com

IMPORTANT: We have become aware of fraudsters targeting other law firms and their clients. Please note that our client account details have recently changed. If you receive an email requesting that you direct money to us, please confirm the bank details with us.

This email (and any attachments) is confidential and may also be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee and access to this email by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient please immediately notify the sender then delete it from your system. You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose its contents to any other person.

Merali Beedle Limited is a limited company registered in England and Wales, registration number 11399125. It is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with registered number 650133.

The firm's registered office is at Vicarage House, 58-60 Kensington Church Street, London W8 4DB. A full list of directors’ names and their professional qualifications may be inspected at our registered office.

Internet transmissions are not always reliable and may contain viruses and we accept no responsibility for any virus that may be transferred by way of transmission.

From: Tarquin Management Ltd <51DP@davylondon.net>
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2025 3:31 AM
To: Central London County, Enquiries <enquiries.centrallondon.countycourt@justice.gov.uk>
Cc: Jason Kallis <JKallis@meralibeedle.com>
Subject: L10CL472 - 51 Draycott Place - relisted 22 Oct hearing

Dear Sirs,

We note the Claimants’ most recent email of 11 September 2025, again pressing for the 22 October hearing to be treated as a final hearing. This repeats applications made since June, each time seeking to bypass due process — either by invoking contrived urgency or by presenting the case as if all were agreed save for costs. The present version relies on the latter.

The premise that “only costs remain” is misleading. The Claimants themselves dispute that the conditions in CPR 39.3(5) are met. Until the Court determines those conditions are satisfied, jurisdiction to set aside the 12 February 2025 order does not arise. The set-aside must therefore be addressed first.

A combined set-aside and final disposal hearing, as implied in the Claimants’ subject line, is not procedurally workable. If set-aside is granted, directions must follow; if refused, the February order stands.

We respectfully ask that the Court confirm the 22 October hearing remains listed to determine the set-aside application as originally intended.

Yours faithfully,

Davy Thielens
of and on behalf of Tarquin Management

On 11/09/2025 13:34, Jason Kallis wrote:

Dear Sirs

+++URGENT +++

Claim numbers L02CL098 AND L10CL472 - Claim for a Vesting Order. LISTING ENQUIRY – Interim Application

We would be grateful if the court can confirm that our application attached (as previously filed on 22 August, and 1 September), is granted, and that the final hearing of the vesting order application will take place on 22 October 2025, when the court has listed a 90 minute hearing already (see final attachment).

As confirmed on 1 September, the Court fee for our attach application of £313 should be taken from the fee account PBA0088821.

Please note that this claim was been issued under Claim no. LO2CL098. On some correspondence, and in orders, the Defendant and the Court has cited the claim number L10CL472. Both seem to apply. These numbers ought to be linked on the Court’s system as we consider that they concern the same matter. Until the Court confirms which claim number applies we shall cite both claim numbers on all correspondence, and have done so purposefully in the attached application.