Dear Mr Kallis,

We write to notify you that we intend to apply to set aside (i) the purported service of the claim form and (ii) the vesting order made following the hearing on 12 February 2025. The application will be brought on the following grounds:

   1. The claim form was not validly served;
   2. We received no notice of the hearing;
   3. The order was made on the basis of materially inaccurate and misleading statements of fact.

These misrepresentations originated from your witness statement and particulars of claim, and were compounded by your failure to disclose key correspondence. The Court was misled in our absence. We will seek our costs of the application in any event.

Please treat this as formal notice and an opportunity to respond before we proceed. We also invite you to consent to an order setting aside service and/or the vesting order to avoid further cost. We reserve all rights.

1. Defective Service of the Claim Form

You failed to serve the claim form in accordance with the CPR. We informed your office as early as 14 September 2022 that we accepted and preferred service via email. You did not serve the claim by email, nor mention its existence in any subsequent correspondence.

You also failed to serve the claim at our current registered office. It appears from the front of the claim form that you used our previous registered address. It was Mr Angiolini’s residential address at a time when you knew he was abroad receiving psychiatric care. Post was not being collected regularly. This was the reason the registered office was changed to a staffed location. You later used the correct address for service of papers relating to the detailed assessment of the Tribunal costs which, unlike this claim form, you also served by email.

The first time we saw the claim form was when you copied us at 2am on 12 February 2025 in an email to the Court attaching your bundle. This was outside the period of validity for service. Prior we were unaware proceedings had even been commenced.

We contacted you on 5 March, 26 March and 4 April requesting the skeleton argument and proof of service. You have not provided either. We will now apply under CPR 11 to challenge jurisdiction on the basis of invalid service, and will seek costs. We invite your consent to this application to avoid unnecessary expense.

2. No Notice of Hearing on 12 February 2025

We received no notice from the Court of the hearing on 12 February 2025. The first and only indication came via your 2am email to the Court, in which we were copied as a CC recipient, but was not addressed directly to us. It was filtered into our junk folder and discovered on 5 March.

You failed to serve your skeleton argument, despite clear written requests on 5 and 26 March. No explanation has been given. In prior correspondence (8 April 2024), you told the Tribunal there was “no obligation” to serve a skeleton where there was no exchange. That position is unsustainable. It fits a clear pattern: when it suits your strategy, you withhold key documents and deny the opposing party a fair opportunity to respond. This will form part of our set-aside application.

You also failed to provide our email address to the Court, so there was no viable route for the Court to notify us. If notice was sent by post, it is likely that it was sent to the wrong address — again, one you knew we were no longer using for service.

We had no opportunity to respond to your application or correct the misstatements made in your witness evidence. This is a clear breach of CPR 39.3 and supports setting aside the order on procedural grounds alone.

3. Misleading Statements and Conduct Concerns

The order is further vitiated by inaccurate, misleading and prejudicial statements made in your sworn evidence.

You asserted that no response was received to your request to sign the TR1. That is plainly false. A detailed reply was sent by email on 15 April 2024, explaining why the TR1 was premature and could not be signed as drafted. Rather than engage, you questioned the sender’s authority and then ignored both that clarification and the substance of the reply. You later claimed under a statement of truth that no response had ever been received, and excluded the relevant correspondence from the bundle.

You also failed to disclose our earlier letter dated 16 August 2023 concerning the terms of acquisition. These omissions were not minor. They misled the Court materially and cannot now be excused as oversight or instruction.

Your witness statement also included repeated and inflammatory allegations which had previously been subject to formal complaints — including claims about supposed drug-related activity in Flat 2 and Mr Angiolini’s alleged complicity. These were unfounded, unsupported, and clearly designed to smear. You further suggested that Mario could and should have evicted the tenant solely on the basis of Mr Galani’s opinion, without a shred of independent evidence.

Most troubling is the personal tone of your sworn comments. You described Mario as “the sort of character” who would abuse process and claimed he was “masking behind the fact he used to be a barrister.” These remarks go far beyond legitimate advocacy. They are improper, defamatory, and completely irrelevant to the legal question before the Court.

We consider this conduct raises serious regulatory and ethical concerns. Mario will now proceed with a formal complaint to the SRA. If you wish to respond before that complaint is submitted, you are invited to do so now.

4. Post-Hearing Concealment and TR1

We did not receive the sealed order until 8 April 2025. You were present at the hearing on 12 February and knew the outcome. Yet you did not notify us — even after our direct contact on 5 March.

This appears to have been a deliberate attempt to gain a procedural advantage by allowing the order to take effect and registering a TR1 before we were aware of it. If there is an alternative explanation, we invite you to provide it now.

Please confirm the following:

   1. Was the draft order prepared by the Court or by you?
   2. Have you obtained a signed TR1 pursuant to the order?
   3. Has the TR1 been submitted to HM Land Registry, or do you intend to do so?

These questions are relevant to both our application and any interim relief we may seek.

Change of Correspondence and Service Email Address

Please note that, going forward, all correspondence relating to 51 Draycott Place should be sent to our new dedicated email address:

📧 51DP@davylondon.net

This address will now be used for all communications relating to the above matter, including service of court documents, notices, and legal submissions. It is jointly monitored and should be treated as the official address for service for all purposes relating to these proceedings.

Please ensure that this address is used going forward and that any relevant systems or records are updated accordingly. Past correspondence to either tarquin.management@gmail.com or marioangiolini@hotmail.com does not need to be resent unless we specifically request it.

We look forward to your prompt response. In the absence of engagement, we will proceed without further notice.

Yours sincerely, 

Davy Thielens 
for and on behalf of Tarquin Management Ltd