Re: [DPS:4I:51DR001/001:E] RE: MM/LON/00AW/OCE/2023/0030 - 51 Draycott Place, London, SW3 3DB

Dear Mark,

I’m sorry to trouble you again on this issue — I appreciate this has generated more correspondence than either of us would wish. That said, I felt it necessary to respond to Mr Kallis’s recent email, both to correct the procedural position and to ensure the Tribunal has a balanced view of the matter.

We note that Mr Kallis has, at least, copied us directly into his response regarding the Appendix to the Tribunal’s decision. We were taken aback by both the tone of his intervention and the distorted reading of the Tribunal’s procedural obligations. In truth, his comments only reinforce the need for disclosure.

His email suggests that the Applicants had detailed knowledge of the contents of the Appendix — including the underlying calculations — discussed or even agreed with their expert at the hearing. Those same details have never been provided to the Respondents. That asymmetry, combined with the Tribunal’s repeated refusal to engage with our formal requests over the course of a year, gives rise to an appearance of bias which should not be allowed to stand.

The Appendix referred to at page 13 includes the Tribunal’s stated calculations on the value of the cellars and the roof development. It forms part of the Tribunal’s reasoning under Rule 52(2)(a), which requires the Tribunal to provide “a statement of reasons for the decision.” Its absence leaves the decision incomplete — especially as it is expressly referenced in the decision itself.

The suggestion that the Appendix need not be disclosed is indefensible. Under Rule 5(3)(k), the Tribunal must conduct proceedings fairly and justly, which includes giving parties a proper opportunity to see and respond to material relied upon in reaching a determination. It is incompatible with both fairness and transparency to rely on a document while withholding it. That is tribunal has done so far.

There has been no “decision” in relation to Appendix 1 — certainly not one that can be appealed. Nothing has ever been said about it.

On timing, we have raised this issue repeatedly since April 2024. The procedural failure is ongoing. To suggest that a document referred to in the determination as containing the Tribunal’s calculations somehow forms part of private deliberations is untenable. It would invert the principle of open and transparent justice.

The suggestion that our absence from the hearing forfeits any right to disclosure is also without merit. The duty to serve a complete decision applies to all parties, regardless of attendance or representation, as required under Rules 2 and 3. To hold otherwise would offend the most basic principles of natural justice.

We trust the Tribunal will be guided by its procedural obligations and the principles of transparent justice — not by assertions plainly incompatible with those rules and seemingly advanced to preserve an advantage by relying on material withheld from the other side, a position difficult to reconcile with fair process.

Kind regards,

Davy Thielens

for and on behalf of Tarquin Management Ltd

On 20/05/2025 13:21, Jason Kallis wrote:

Dear Sirs

We do not agree that the calculation is critical because the failure to issue the appendix has been dealt with - you asked for the appendix in May 2024 along with your application to set aside, but were told by the Judge in June 2024 she was not prepared to entertain either your application or you request. That was an appealable decision it itself. You cannot wait c. 12 months before issuing an appeal of this nature.

Besides that I see no grounds for an appeal at law, or an erring in it, that could possibly emanate from (a) the appendix not being sent to you (it did not need to be sent to you in the first place), and (b) a calculation that was discussed in a Tribunal, but decided upon by a judge and an expert presiding surveyor in private (as is usually the case). You could have attended the Trial but did not.

Your previous position on the other issues are unsustainable, for previously given reasons, and again, you should have appealed or sought permission to appeal before now in that respect.

Yours sincerely

Jason

From: Davy Thielens <tarquin.management@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, May 19, 2025 6:18 PM
To: Martin, Mark <Mark.Martin@justice.gov.uk>
Cc: Jason Kallis <JKallis@meralibeedle.com>
Subject: Re: MM/LON/00AW/OCE/2023/0030 - 51 Draycott Place, London, SW3 3DB - Request appendix to tribunal decision

Dear Mark,

I hope you’re well.

I just wanted to follow up regarding our letter of 9 May concerning the Appendix to the Tribunal’s decision, which you kindly forwarded to Judge Daley and Mr Jagger.

It has now been ten days, and we have not yet received any update. As previously explained, the Appendix is critical to understanding the Tribunal’s reasoning and for preparing any appeal. I would be grateful if you could let us know whether a response is expected, or if further action is required on our part to obtain the document.

Thank you again for your help.

Kind regards,

Davy

On 09/05/2025 15:54, Martin, Mark wrote:

Dear Mr Thielens,

Thank you for your email and attached letter.

I have forwarded both to Judge Daley and Mr Jagger.

Kind regards

Mark

From: Davy Thielens <tarquin.management@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, May 9, 2025 3:46 PM
To: Martin, Mark <Mark.Martin@justice.gov.uk>; London RAP <London.Rap@Justice.gov.uk>
Cc: JKallis@meralibeedle.com
Subject: MM/LON/00AW/OCE/2023/0030 - 51 Draycott Place, London, SW3 3DB - Request appendix to tribunal decision

Dear Mr Martin,

Please find attached a further letter from Tarquin Management Ltd regarding the Appendix referred to at page 13 of the Tribunal’s decision in this matter.

The Appendix is said to contain the Tribunal’s calculations in respect of the valuation of the front cellars, roof space, and the award of costs. These calculations form part of the Tribunal’s reasoning and fall within the scope of Rule 52(2)(a). The issue was first raised on 10 April 2024 and has since been repeated on 10 May, 3 June, and 4 June. The request remains unacknowledged and the document has not been provided.

The position is now obstructing the formulation of appeal grounds and delaying progress towards conclusion of the enfranchisement. We must ask once again that the Appendix be disclosed without further delay. Alternatively, please provide the reasons why it cannot be disclosed.

Yours sincerely,

Davy Thielens

Tarquin Management Ltd

This e-mail and any attachments is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail. Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message by e-mail. This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. Monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.

--

for and on behalf of Tarquin Management Ltd

-- 
for and on behalf of Tarquin Management Ltd