Dear Sirs

For the record, there is no distortion in what I said, and it should be read for it’s true meaning. I made it clear that the calculations for the premium were dealt with by the panel of judges, after the hearing and before the decision was issued.

As for the rest of what Mr Thielans says, it seems to us that he has not read the decision itself, had he done so he’d know what the Tribunals view on the cellars etc.. was.  Indeed, he would be clear that reasons for the decision were stated.

In short, this email makes little sense to us, and we remain of the view that the Respondent is out of time on all counts vis a vis an appeal.

Yours faithfully

Merali Beedle

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

-- 

for and on behalf of Tarquin Management Ltd

-- 

for and on behalf of Tarquin Management Ltd