“7. ….on the totality of the evidence before me, I am quite satisfied that the Defendant's evidence as to the nature of the payments and the execution of the documents relied on by the Claimant is not only incredible but is simply untrue. Such is the unreliability of the Defendant as a witness that I would not be prepared to accept his evidence on any matter in dispute without incontrovertible corroborative evidence, and where his evidence conflicts with the Claimant's, as will appear, I have generally accepted hers, not because as Mr Markham has suggested, she is a solicitor but because I am satisfied that she is a truthful and generally reliable witness whereas he regrettably is not.”
“1. The application appears to be without merit, as it appears to be seeking to raise a counterclaim or set off not raised at the trial, which was over two years ago. 2. If the application is to be pursued, it must be made on proper notice to the Claimant and dealt with at a hearing when the normal costs rules will apply.”
“The Claimant’s claim, the particulars of claim [in case HQ14X00238] is an abuse of the court’s process and is struck out in its entirety.”
"Before a party can be ordered to account, liability to account must be established. This liability arises immediately out of the defendant's receipt of property in an accountable capacity. The basis of the duty to account is the fiduciary relationship. The claimant has the onus of proving that the defendant has received property into their control in circumstances sufficient to import an equitable obligation to handle a property for the benefit of another. The liability to account does not depend on the defendant having mishandled the property or otherwise breached their trust."
“…there is, in my judgment, no clear evidence that the items shown in the photographs are items which were not included within the order for sale made by the High Court. Although there is some scope for speculation and argument about that, the position is not sufficiently clear to justify the ordering of an account in circumstances such as those which I have described.”
“I consider it just and convenient that the identified furniture should continue to be frozen, such that Mr Markham cannot deal with it. If he does have it in his possession, he should not be entitled to dissipate it. If it is not in his possession, then the injunction can do him no harm.”
“11. There is one further aspect of the matter. Mr Markham describes himself as being of no fixed address and yet he comes before the court today seeking relief. In my judgment in order to obtain such relief he must provide his address. I do not accept the suggestion that he is effectively homeless. He has today instructed counsel to attend, and is paying counsel’s fees for so doing. Mr Hartman is not able to tell the court how that money has been sourced, notwithstanding the obligation to provide that information under the freezing injunction. 12. In my judgment, the appropriate course is that the partial discharge of the freezing injunction should be conditional upon Mr Markham providing the address where he is residing to Ms O’Hara, and unless he does that the current order will remain in force. If and when he provides his current residential address, the order will be varied as I have indicated.”