“In this regard I would say something about the importance of contemporary documents as a means of getting at the truth, not only of what was going on, but also as to the motivation and state of mind of those concerned. That applies to documents passing between the parties, but with even greater force to a party's internal documents including e-mails and instant messaging. Those tend to be the documents where a witness's guard is down and their true thoughts are plain to see…… ….It is therefore particularly important that, in a case where there are contemporary documents which appear on their face to provide cogent evidence contrary to the conclusion which the judge proposes to reach, he should explain why they are not to be taken at face value or are outweighed by other compelling considerations. It is, however, striking that the judgment in this case contains virtually no analysis of the contemporary documents many of which appear to shed considerable light on the nature and purpose of the critical confirmations and the way in which they were understood.”
“In my judgment, contemporaneous written documentation is of the very greatest importance in assessing credibility. Moreover, it can be significant not only where it is present and the oral evidence can then be checked against it. It can also be significant if written documentation is absent. For instance, if the judge is satisfied that certain contemporaneous documentation is likely to have existed were the oral evidence correct, and that the party adducing oral evidence is responsible for its non-production, then the documentation may be conspicuous by its absence and the judge may be able to draw inferences from its absence.”
“It is rare in modern commercial litigation to encounter a claim, particularly a claim for millions of pounds, based on an agreement which is not only said to have been made purely by word of mouth but of which there is no contemporaneous documentary record of any kind. In the twenty-first century the prevalence of emails, text messages and other forms of electronic communication is such that most agreements or discussions which are of legal significance, even if not embodied in writing, leave some form of electronic footprint. In the present case, however, such a footprint is entirely absent. The only sources of evidence of what was said in the conversation on which Mr Blue’s claim is based are the recollections reported by the people who were present in the Horse & Groom on24 January 2013 and any inferences that can be drawn from what Mr Blue and Mr Ashley later said and did. The evidential difficulty is compounded by the fact that most of the later conversations relied on by Mr Blue were also not recorded or referred to in any contemporaneous document.”
“The balance of probability standard means that a court is satisfied an event occurred if the court considers that, on the evidence, the occurrence of the event was more likely than not. When assessing the probabilities the court will have in mind as a factor, to whatever extent is appropriate in the particular case, that the more serious the allegation the less likely it is that the event occurred and, hence, the stronger should be the evidence before the court concludes that the allegation is established on the balance of probability. Fraud is usually less likely than negligence. Deliberate physical injury is usually less likely than accidental physical injury. … Built into the preponderance of probability standard is a generous degree of flexibility in respect of the seriousness of the allegation. Although the result is much the same, this does not mean that where a serious allegation is in issue the standard of proof required is higher. It means only that the inherent probability or improbability of an event is itself a matter to be taken into account when weighing the probabilities and deciding whether, on balance, the event occurred. The more improbable the event, the stronger must be the evidence that it did occur before, on the balance of probability, its occurrence will be established.”
“Under ordinary circumstances the contract of partnership excludes any implied contract for payment for services rendered for the firm by any of its members. Consequently, under ordinary circumstances and in the absence of an agreement to that effect, one partner cannot charge his copartners with any sum for compensation, whether in the shape of salary, commission, or otherwise, on account of his own trouble in conducting the partnership business.”
“The drafting of section 4(4) raises problems. Whilst I suspect that the average conscientious self-employed professional or business person commonly regards himself as his hardest master, such perception is inaccurate as a matter of legal principle. That is because in law an individual cannot be an employee of himself. Nor can a partner in a partnership be an employee of the partnership, because it is equally not possible for an individual to be an employee of himself and his copartners: see Cowell v Quilter Goodison Co Ltd[1989] IRLR 392 Unfortunately, the authors of section 4(4) were apparently unaware of this.”
“It is idle to deny that, indirectly, an employee has an interest in the profitability of the firm for the continuation of his job may well depend on it. Nevertheless the absence of a direct link between the level of payments and the profits of the firm is in most cases a strongly negative pointer towards the crucial conclusion as to whether the recipient is among those who are carrying on its business. But the conclusion must be informed by reference to all the features of the agreement. Thus, for example, provision or otherwise for a contribution on his part to the working capital of the firm will be relevant. And it will be important to discern whether, expressly or impliedly, the agreement provides not only that acts within his authority should bind the acknowledged partners but also that their such acts should bind him; for such is provided by section 5 of the Act to be a necessary incident of partnership but would, of course, be inconsistent with his status as an employee.”
“Section 1 of the Partnership Act 1890 defines a “partnership” as “the relation which exists between persons carrying on a business in common with a view to profit”
“Vagueness in what is said or omission of important terms may be a ground for concluding that no agreement has been reached at all or for concluding that, although an agreement has been reached, it is not intended to be legally binding. But certainty and completeness of terms is also an independent requirement of a contract. Thus, even where it is apparent that the parties have made an agreement which is intended to be legally binding, the court may conclude that the agreement is too uncertain or incomplete to be enforceable.”
“An agreement to enter into partnership, like any other contract, must be supported by consideration if it is to be enforceable. However, in a normal case such consideration can readily be found, whether in the form of a contribution of capital or a particular skill, or some act which may result in liability to third parties. Alternatively, it may (and, indeed, frequently will) be represented by the mutual obligations which the parties undertake by entering into partnership together or, in so far as consideration is required for an ad hoc variation of the partnership agreement, agreeing to remain in partnership on the amended terms.”
“21.— Deduction and repayment of tax by reference to employee's code (1) On making a relevant payment to an employee during a tax year, an employer must deduct or repay tax in accordance with these Regulations by reference to the employee's code, if the employer has one for the employee. (2) The employer must deduct or repay tax by reference to the employee's code, even if the code is the subject of an objection or appeal.”
“Also as our employer SALUS is retiring end of the month pls can you kindly do P45 for all SALUS staff and also P45 for the two remaining AQUA staff as well. Both Salus and AQUA will close and a new company called natio will be set up for september payroll and the employees of AQUA and SALUS will be employed by NATIO. I will send you the registration of NATIO which I have received from Inland Revenue.”
“Jaswant Sidhu needs to have full access to the account and to be a full signatory on the account. I currently have internet banking and would like to link the Natio & Sole trader bank accounts to my personal business premier banking.”
“Your client is the freehold owner of the premises situated at 330-332 Ruislip Road, which is a doctor’s surgery. The monthly rent which is paid by our client is in fact£3,425 and the figure contained in your letter is erroneous. As to the remainder of the facts in your letter, please note the following: 1. The rent for April 2015 has in fact been paid. You should ask your client to check his records; 2. The rent for May and June 2015 (the latter of which has only recently fallen due) is accepted to be outstanding; 3. However, as your client is aware, he is contracted to this surgery to carry out locum GP work. Your client has in fact received£9,900 in overpayments for the work that he has carried out to date;…. …..Please note that your client has attended at the premises on a number of occasions and he has been extremely abusive and threatening to Dr Rathor, the Business Manager and other members of staff. Please ask him to refrain from doing so as a matter of urgency, failing which our client will have no choice but to seek an injunction against him.”
“As you are no doubt aware you are in receipt of monthly notional rent payments of approx.£3.4k . I have checked with finance and the payments have been made to you each month. I was somewhat concerned to hear from Dr Ali stating that he had not been paid any rent since April 2015. The payments that we make to you are specifically for the rent and may not be used for any other purpose.”
“Dr Rathor will need to provide assurance of how she intends to manage the increase in list size based on current clinical provision. Please provide information on the proposed number of WTE clinical staff. Dr Rathor previously stated her intentions to take on a new partner. Is this still the case?”
“Please see attached completed form as per Bernadette Johnson.”
“I have seen the schedule of payments that have been put together by my daughter. I have never done the exercise of calculating everything that myself and my husband loaned to them but we would have sat down and worked it out, had the marriage lasted. I confirm that, as far as I can tell, the payments that she has set out are corrected [sic] and are the loans that myself and my husband made.”
“Dr rent 2000 plus ccg rent 1875 plus any private rent plus my locum then all income yours we can start augest [sic] but y have to work from may 1 to 2 session weekly are you going away july august” “we need to meet him and discuss” “He thinks we are silly. Give him one off payment, his locum and rent reimbursement”
“Thank you for speaking to Jazz earlier. As requested please find attached partnership form. I also found the original email sent in July 2015. Please see below.”
“Please see attached paperwork requested by yourself.”
“Please provide this information to the NHS CB no less than 28 days before the requested contract variation.”
“1) Will the partnership be a limited partnership and, if so, who is a limited and who is a general partner? No – General Partner, 2) Confirm that the proposed partner(s) is/are either i. a medical practitioner; or ii. a person who satisfies the conditions specified in the NHS Act. ii – yes. 3) Confirm that the proposed partner(s) satisfies the conditions imposed by regulations 4 and 5 of the GMS Contract Regulation 2004 Yes.” iii) On the second page were a fourth and fifth question which were asked and answered in the following way (and again I underline the manuscript responses): “4) Confirm the GMC number of the proposed partner(s) and name on the Performers List that the proposed partner(s) currently is/are currently on N/A 5) Give the proposed date from which you wish the contract variation to be implemented:01st July 2016 .” iv) Beneath the typed words “Signed by current contract holder”
“1) Details of the proposed new members to your agreement: Jaswant Sidhu – Business Manager, 2) Confirm that the new members are joining you under your contractual agreement and you are not intending to become a qualifying body. Yes 3) Confirm that the proposed new members joining meet the eligibility criteria for holding a PMS agreement as set out in Regulation 4 and 5 of thePMS Regulations 2004 . Yes. 4) Confirm that the premises are fit for purpose in accordance with the minimum standards set out in the 2013 GMS Premises Costs Directions or confirm that the practice has a Business Plan to achieve within no more than 12 months (attach copy of business plan to this application): Yes –CQC Visit on7th June 2016 .” vii)The second page contained three further questions. The fifth was concerned with service improvements and the answer “N/A” had been given. The sixth question asked for CVs of the proposed new members to be attached (and this question was left blank). The seventh question asked for the proposed date from which the agreement was to run and, again, this was completed with the date1 July 2016 . viii) Beneath the typed words “Signed by current agreement holder”
“Further to your email below please find attached the contract variation for Allenby Clinic E85105 for signing and countersigning. Bernadette will be in contact with you regarding Northolt Family Practice request to vary the contract.”
“Further to your notification of21st June 2016 informing the NHS Commissioning Board (known as NHS England) that Jaswant Kaur Sidhu will be joining the partnership as a partner on the1st July 2016 , we give you notice under theNational Health Service (General Medical Services Contracts) Regulations 2004 (S.I. 2004/291) that the contract shall continue with the partnership entered into by you and your partner from the1st July 2016 . NHS England hereby issues a contract variation to replace your schedule 1 Part 2 of your GMS Contract with effect from1st July 2016 . We request you to acknowledge receipt of this notice by signing and returning the enclosed duplicate of it.”
“The Contract is made with the partnership as it is from time to time constituted and shall continue to subsist notwithstanding (1) the retirement, death or expulsion of any one or more partners; and/or (2) the addition of any one or more partners. The Contractor shall ensure that any person who becomes a member of the partnership after the Contract has come into force is bound automatically by the Contract by virtue of a partnership deed or otherwise.”
“Sareet can you look at this for me as I thought we had already signed this and sent it back.”
“Adding non-clinical partner to the PMS Agreement”
“Apologies for putting the incorrect address on the variation. Please see attached a corrected variation. Please can this be signed and returned to be countersigned”
“The practice has one female GP partner and two male long term locum GPs working a total of thirteen sessions amongst them. The practice has a full time practice manager. The rest of the practice team consists of one part time locum practice nurse, one part time health care assistant, an assistant practice manager and five administrative staff consisting of medical secretaries, reception staff, clerks and typists.”
“On the day of inspection the partners in the practice demonstrated that they had the experience, capacity and capability to run the practice and ensure high quality care. Staff told us the partners were approachable and always took time to listen to all members of staff.”
“I asked him about surgery price. He was unable to give me any figure but clearly said that will go by valuation but did not say when. He gave me his accountants details and permission for my accountant to communicate with each other as i [sic] will need last 3 years accounts to show to my bank. He also said that as things are going slow, the partnership may not start till another ? month/months, again did not give time but still expects me to do minimum 2 sessions per week. I am happy to do so as far as he signs a partnership agreement which states the price of the premises and a start date for partnership and then full partnership. My impression is that, there is only one way to move forward and that is via yourself. Therefore I am happy to start with what you said, please give account details and amount to be paid as a deposit.”
“Sorry to mail you on a Sunday I could not talk to you about everything other day You know that Jaz has not allowed me to take any profit except my minimum wages I went to barclays yesterday I was shocked to see some figures My concern [sic] are as follows 1) Jas has the use of and authority of the natio card 2) I saw she gets paid£5800 per month and I guess after tax 3) there was almost£130k in natio account I have never taken any profits She keeps on saying that I pay for everything and there is not enough money and I will have to pay tax and somehow she will try and get 30-40k every year as my profits but when time comes I took over practice 01/09/14 Nothing since Where is the money I am sure the total monthly between 2 practice is approx 50k including everything I asked barclays to give me a mortgage of 650k Can you please advise me if I can transfer money from natio to saving time being as it will look good Also I believe that is my profits Why she keeps all the money in the natio I work 12 hrs a day for 5 days and another 10 hrs over weekend You please need to calculate my income/profits They both also take plenty of holidays Jas was off sick for 6 weeks from December to January She then took 3 weeks to go to India Sareet went 3 weeks march At present they both are off again since last Wednesday till this weekend and then again together in may for 1 week They both work 4 days per week From 7 am to 4 pm Please advise me as much as you can Also they stopped bank sending me messages as jas gave Sareet number I have changed it now Jas insisted she wants to be on account I have requested bank to send me a card They said I am the main name on the account Please check how much she is taking before tax The problem is that they can both be very notorious if you don’t do what they say. Only thing she done for me help with ?35k to pay Ali which as far as I know she has taken back I am feeling very worried and anxious Please find a way Also Sareet does internet banking and can see all my accounts including personal Can we not pay everyone by cheque She just transfer the money Jas thinks I can’t afford another mortgage but she can I have taken my child out of private schools Sorry to bother but I feel very stressed”
“Hi Dr Rathor, please give me a call when you get a few minutes.”
“We are looking to provide the final figures to Dr Rathor on Monday if you could please reply as soon as possible it would be greatly appreciated.”
“You know we saved 80. I need 130 for deposit and 40 for stamp duty. I am trying some from some one else if I can. I can always payback once I am done with barclays. You enjoy birthday first. When you come back then see. I will know more by then. You have always helped me in every way and I respect that.” “Nothing is impossible. I will always do what you want. No problem.”
“Dr S Rathor is the sole partner for both surgeries, namely Allenby Clinic and Northolt Family Practice.”
“Cheque analysis for all payments made.”
“I have already sent Allenby and Northolt’s statements from July 16-july 17 to Yasin recoded [sic] delivery 2 weeks ago. There is no other income or remittance to send to you. I have emailed Natio statements from julu16 [sic]-july 17 and P32 and cheque entities to Yasmin [sic] also two weeks ago….”
“Draft Financial statements at21 August 2017 at 19.49.44”
“Draft Financial statements at22 August 2017 at 09.04.11”
“Mrs Sidhu is a partner of the Practice, and you notified the NHS Commissioning Board of that fact in or about June 2016. A Contract Variation Agreement Form was signed in August 2016 and it related to both the Northolt Family Practice and the Allenby Clinic.”
“Due to some unforeseen circumstances I have suspended Jaswant Sidhu and Sareet Sidhu who are my managers till further investigations. Jaswant Sidhu is an employee but she is claiming to be a partner on Northolt Family Practice which was Dr Alis [sic] before. She told me that she was always on it. She has hidden all paperwork from me and I need to see copy for both Allenby clinic and northolt Family practice please. I need for my HR team. I also need access to open exeter as they both have access and have always denied me the access….”
“Here are the contract details you requested. It very much looks like Jaswant Sidhu is a non-clinical partner on both contracts.”
“I am still surprised how Jaswant Sidhu made me sign the contarct [sic] variation for GMS contract as I was unaware of it. I knew about the pMS [sic] contract for Northolt Family Practice. “Unfortunately I had to suspend her and her daughter Sareet for many irregularties [sic] in the practice. Jaswant Sidhu was an employee in the practice. Some how she has managed to get my signature on the GMS contract. I have the HR team dealing with the issues but this is another issue to deal. I will appreciate if you can help and support me in this.”
“The Claimant and the Defendant agreed in about July 2015 that they would enter into partnership in relation to both medical practices and the Claimant and the Defendant did so enter into partnership in relation to both medical practices;…”
“In mid June 2015, from the time that the Claimant and the Defendant agreed that the Claimant would be a partner, the Defendant agreed that the Claimant would continue to withdraw this sum as drawings from the partnership.”
“There is no middle ground in this case – it is no party’s case that they just cannot recall whether a loan was made or not. The loan itself is not only relied upon by Jaswant for her case that Dr Rathor promised to make her a partner, but also as the justification for later payments/cash withdrawals of£2,900 per month which Dr Rathor claims against her and which Jaswant claims initially constituted loan repayments and then later on, partnership drawings.”
“Mr Hood: So, now here you are claiming that Dr Ali was happy to do something illegal, demanding£120,000 cash for the goodwill of his practice. But this is the background to that, is it not? You are quite happy to suggest that, which I suggest is a baseless allegation, as the basis for you claiming you loaned Dr Rathor£60,000 cash in January 2014. That is the truth, is it not? Mrs Sidhu: No, Sir. Not at all. Dr, Dr Rathor and Dr Ali had this conversation with the accountant and that is what Dr Rathor had agreed and, obviously, Dr Ali did tell me at some point, when they had these discussions, that, that he had agreed the goodwill for the practice at£125,000 , Sir. Mr Hood: Told you at some point. Mrs Sidhu: Yes, Sir, when their discussions were taking place in early ’13 when Dr Rathor was locuming for us. And Mr Fonseka, Sir, when you will see him, in his evidence, he would tell you.”
“Leech J: And the point he made to you was that it does not mention the£60,000 loan there and he just, we just want to know why it is not mentioned in this document. Mrs Sidhu: In the beginning, I, it was the partnership but when she, obviously, you know, she brought a counterclaim in on theft charges and fraud charges, that is when, Sir, I brought in the loan payment as well. Leech J: I want to be fair to you, Mrs Sidhu, it may be that you just did not think it was relevant at this stage and, if that is the answer, then say so. But, what is, Mr Hood, is, is going to know why does it come later, why, why is it, when, when he raises, his client raises the defence and counterclaim, do you ask, do you raise it then. Mrs Sidhu: Sir, because of the£60,000 , we went into partnership. So, obviously, the partnership and the£60,000 both of them have relevance, Sir.”
“Mrs Sidhu: Sir, the conversation was with Dr Rathor when, when I spoke to her in 2016 and I said: “As a partner you’ve not given me any drawings.”
“Leave it as loan. We will get this sorted after the mortgage is sorted. I will deal with it [she said] don’t worry.”
“The loan has been paid off.”
“You have not paid me anything towards the partnership so far.”
“Just leave it as a loan [and that is what I did, Sir] and we will sort that out once the mortgage is sorted.”
“Mrs Sidhu: No, Sir, in the summer of the time that was, Sir, when we had the discussion and I said: “You have not [you know] you have not paid me anything towards the partnership profits at all.”
“Just draw that same sum as the loan.”
“I just need my mortgage sorted, that’s important.”
“Mr Hood: Did the practice keep a petty cash account book? Mrs Sidhu: No, Sir. Mr Hood: No. So -- Mrs Sidhu: I, sorry, Sir, I used, it was not in a book, Sir, that is what I said, it was in a paper which I used to write down whatever the expenses were for that month. If I had spent a£100 ,£5 ,£10 ,£200 , Sir, or whatever, Sir, for tea, coffees and other things, you know, when she, sometimes she used to send me to go and do the shopping, say: “Go and buy this, go and buy this, go and buy this.”
“Mr Hood: No. So, they are misdescriptions. Why, why would you misdescribe things like that to an accountant just because Dr Rathor, you say, asked you to do so? It is dishonest, is it not? Mrs Sidhu: Well, looking back at it now, yes, Sir. I was stupid and gullible. Mr Hood: Well, you do not have to look back at it now to appreciate that at the time, do you? Mrs Sidhu: Sir, I thought I was helping her. That, we were, we were very, very close, Sir, always did everything she wanted. Mr Hood: But what about you? You were her partner, according to your case. Mrs Sidhu: Yes, Sir, I was her partner. Mr Hood: Were you not in the slightest bit concerned about protecting yourself when making these misrepresentations, in case someone pointed the finger at you? Mrs Sidhu: Sir, I trusted Dr Rathor. We were good friends. We had been, we had been through thick and thin with each other. We talked to each other about everything, Sir. She asked me to do it and I did it. Like I said, Sir, looking back, you know, I was stupid and I was gullible and now … Mr Hood: So, did Yasin from AMS who was doing your accounts ask you anything about these particular payments? Mrs Sidhu: None of the drawings, Sir, he always discussed the drawings with Dr Rathor. We used to have a conference call. Mr Hood: Why did he not, why did he not include you in the discussions about drawings, given that you told him you were a partner? Mrs Sidhu: Sir, I do not know but we would sit down, when we had a conference call, I remember, this was on 26 April when we had the conference call, he discussed it with Dr Rathor, it was a three way call. She discussed these points with him.”
“That day my mother was not actually in the practice, and I interacted with Dr Rathor, because my mum had told me she was going to drop some money off at the practice. I then waited for Dr Rathor, and she dropped in on me shortly after lunch, and when I took the bag off her, there was about£5,000 or so in the bag, which I then handed on the way. Later that day, when I saw my mum, I had asked her what was going on, what the money was for, and then she explained to me that she was arranging with Dr Rathor£60,000 , because she was purchasing the practice from Dr Ali for 135,000.”
“Q. You go on to say: “I knew that Dr Rathor had access to the Natio bank account, and she never complained about the money that Jaswant withdrew from Natio in cash. In fact, Dr Rathor texted Jaswant on at least one occasion to ask if she was at the bank and to take cash out for her.”
“There was at least one occasion when I was with Dr Rathor, and she telephoned Jaswant and asked her if she was at the bank and asked her to take cash out for her.”
“Q. How did you know that these£500 were being taken out? A. Because from 2014, September, when Dr Rathor was going [inaudible], up until it was used. For example, this money was used for petty cash. We had to clean the practice. She would very much find use for three to five hundred pounds a month to pay for these hours that she did, so that duration, up until the summer of 2015, most of our payment would go towards the cleaning. She would want her wages weekly, because she would have come in every day at the end of the day when the practice was closed to do the cleaning, because we were an independent property. JUDGE LEECH: So – sorry, so it was up until? SUREET SIDHU: It was up until we moved, because the property that we were in did not have a cleaner, because to help we had to pay our own cleaners, so we had a lady that we had used for a number of years at Northolt family practice. MR HOOD: So, it was almost always cleaned up by payments to the cleaner, was it, this£500 for that period of time? SUREET SIDHU: I think up until about that time, yes.”
“2. I produced the mum’s loan schedule. I also produced a statement which was used in my divorce case. The case did not go to a final hearing and it settled, where I paid my ex husband£77,500 less court fees for a final settlement. My income and employment had nothing to do with the case. 3. I produced the Mum’s loan schedule. My parents were very upset with my decision to get divorced and I had very little help from them because they saw it as a big shame that their daughter was going to be divorced. I cannot overstate what a big shame that is and they tried to persuade me to stay married to my now ex husband. 4. It is also the case that my mother was diagnosed with possible cancer of the uterus during the period that I was trying to finalise the statement. She was not able to help me, and I took the figures that I believe they gave me in [sic] to pay my builders as best as I could looking at the bank statements. 5. I had a great deal of difficulty actually working out what was paid to the builders because there were three different builders, two which left the job incomplete.”
“Mr Hood: What you set out there about loaning money to Dr Rathor, that did not happen, did it? What, what you, what you are doing now is just trying to support your wife’s case. Mr Gurdashin Sidhu: No, Sir. It happened, because the previous time when Dr Rathor loaned some money it was given back and so we, my wife trusted her and took pity on her. So she loaned her the money, plus she was told that she will be made a partner in the practice. Mr Hood: Well, that is not true, is it, Mr Sidhu? Mr Gurdashin Sidhu: No, Sir. That is the truth.”
“Mr Hood: But looking at pages 40 to 43, there is just four pages of statements here. You obviously had an awful lot more besides this, did you not, at the time your statement was made? And the time your wife made her statement in September 2018? Mr Gurdashin Sidhu: Yes, Sir. Mr Hood: Did anyone ask you to disclose them? Mr Gurdashin Sidhu: No, Sir. It is just, I was told to get them and I just got them. So some came in the post, majority of them that is how they came. Mr Hood: You were just told to get them. Are you just referring to these -- Mr Sidhu: Yes. Mr Hood: Specific four pages? Or others? Mr Gurdashin Sidhu: Not this specific from that period when the case was started, so 20, 20, no, I cannot remember now which date it was. I cannot remember the date. It is just, if they just said I was told to get whichever was required I got them. Mr Hood: Right. Mr Gurdashin Sidhu: For the bank to send it. Mr Hood: So you were told just to get statements for, for a certain period, or showing a certain thing? Mr Gurdashin Sidhu: No, it is certain periods because, or any statements that were not, had gone missing from the whole file. Mr Hood: Right, so any missing statements -- Mr Gurdashin Sidhu: Missing -- Mr Hood: For your accounts. Mr Gurdashin Sidhu: That I could not account for, so get that. Mr Hood: Right, and at that time you had quite a number of accounts. Yeah? I think you said -- Mr Gurdashin Sidhu: I did have a lot, yes. Mr Hood: Yes, OK. So you, you managed to get together, is it fair to say, a pretty good collection of statements by the time you had got further statements from the bank? Is that right? Mr Gurdashin Sidhu: I can, I got quite a few but I cannot remember which is which. Mr Hood: Right, and where are those statements now? Mr Gurdashin Sidhu: Some are still with me, some I do not know. Mr Hood: Would any have been lost since you got these in? Mr Gurdashin Sidhu: As I said, my filing is very bad so I do not, I might even throw them away. I cannot remember. Mr Hood: Did anyone tell you not to throw away bank statements after these proceedings started? Mr Gurdashin Sidhu: No, Sir. Mr Hood: Nobody? Mr Gurdashin Sidhu: No.”
“Mr Hood: Yeah, did not strike you as particularly a stupid man, in your opinion? Mr Sangha: At one of the meetings where, that is where I was chair of the patient party, the patient group, they asked me what I liked about Dr Ali and I said, he did not have to look at the computer, he remembered my medical history. Mr Hood: All right. The reason I ask is because your evidence about Dr Ali selling the goodwill of the practice would be against the law for him to do so, it will be a criminal offence, do you understand? Mr Sangha: Yes. Mr Hood: Yeah, and the idea that he would sell in cash the goodwill of his practice to avoid detection, that is something that, that, that Dr Ali just would not have done, is it? Mr Sangha: To be honest with -- Mr Hood: It is not the sort of thing -- Mr Sangha: You, I was -- Mr Hood: You would expect? Mr Sangha: To be honest with you I was surprised and I did mention, I, because there was a bribe, I think the Bribery Act 20, 2010, or the Proceeds of Crime Act or something. I said to him, I am sure it is wrong, but it was up to him, it was not me who was going to make that decision.”
“Mr Hood: And you say there that you found out that Dr Rathor had borrowed money from Jaswant and that she had borrowed£60,000 and Jaswant wanted to know if you knew anyone who could draw up a loan agreement. So was she saying she was keen to get something in writing? Mr Fonseka: This£60,000 was in connection with her buying a share out of the partnership from Dr Ali. Mr Hood: The question -- Mr Fonseka: And -- Mr Hood: Was, Mr Fonseka … Mr Fonseka: Yeah, sorry. Mr Hood: From what you say there, it sounds like Jaswant was anxious to get somebody to draw up a written loan agreement in relation to the£60,000 . Mr Fonseka: Yes, they did ask me, yes. Mr Hood: She actually sought you out and asked you -- Mr Fonseka: Well, in the course-- Mr Hood: If you knew someone. Mr Fonseka: She had been seeking out, I mean, the, in the, one of the meetings that we had, yeah, she asked me. And I do not think I gave her any names. Mr Hood: And you did not suggest Mr Pershad, for example, that has legal expertise. Mr Fonseka: Maybe I did. I cannot honestly recall whetherI mentioned him. Mr Hood: OK. Again, no such conversation took place, did it? There was no reference to a£60,000 loan. Mr Fonseka: Because I was fully aware of the loan. Mr Hood: Did you know it was in cash? Mr Fonseka: Yeah, yes, I mean, I was told. I mean, I was told it was in cash, yes. Mr Hood: OK. Mr Fonseka: I, I cannot vouch for what actually happened, because I was not there.”
“116. I have explained my methodology for preparing the accounts above. As can be seen the bank reconciliation document identified above, I highlighted in yellow the bank transactions which required further explanation. As can be seen from these pages, there were regular monthly withdrawals of cash shown on the bank statements, frequently in the sum of£500 and£2,400 . 117. I then met Dr Rathor in order to go through the draft accounts and the documents. As I have explained above, this is my practice when completing company accounts. I specifically drew her attention to the amounts that were being drawn out in cash which I had provisionally allocated to her (under the heading Dr Rathor). She told me that the£2,400 and£500 per month that were being drawn out in cash were repayments of the loan that was due to Jaswant Sidhu and sometimes the£500 was repayment of petty cash. 118. I remember that she asked me whether or not there was a way that she could save money on the loan. As the loan was not made to the company but not made to her personally, I said that there was nothing could be done to mitigate the taxes that she had to pay and that these sums needed to be treated as dividends paid to her. Then she could whatever she wanted with the money.”
“Mr Hood: In your single, 30 minute meeting with Dr Rathor- Mr Fonseka: Yeah. Mr Hood: At the year end, you did not go through either of these two documents with Dr Rathor, did you? There was not time, was there, to do that? Mr Fonseka: I do not know exactly how much time it took, but it was a, it, it will not take long to go through this to ask her. Listen, I can say all the, what was, why this cash transfer every month of£502,400 ? And she gave me an explanation. And that relates to every single month. I did not have to ask the question 12 times. There were one or two, and then those were transfers to her, to own accounts. I mean, this, done, this actually could be done in ten minutes. Mr Hood: This is the sort of information that you would have gone through with Jaswant, is it not? Mr Fonseka: What? I am sorry? Mr Hood: Well, you were dealing with Jaswant in relation to the accounts, save -- Mr Fonseka: Yeah. Mr Hood: For the one meeting. Mr Fonseka: She gave, she is the one who gave me all the prime documents for me to prepare these. His Honour Judge Leech: She is the one who gave you … Mr Fonseka: The prime documents, the bank statements, everything. She gave me all the details. Mr Hood: And you raised queries with her, did you not? Mr Fonseka: If there was something that I needed to refer to, I asked and answered her. Yes, I did. I cannot recall whether I did it on this particular occasion. I -- Mr Hood: Sit -- Mr Fonseka: I must have, yeah, if you want … Mr Hood: Sitting here today … Mr Fonseka: Yes. Mr Hood: Can you say with any confidence that you actually went through this document at page 426 and this document at page 427 to 432 with Dr Rathor? Mr Fonseka: Yeah, yes. Mr Hood: You did not, did you? Mr Fonseka: I did. Mr Hood: It is not true. Mr Fonseka: I am sorry, but I, I answered once, and that is all I am going to answer.”
“On-line Banking bill payment to Jazz 261. Ref:- LOAN”
“MR JORY: Doctor, you did have internet access to various accounts, including your personal account, did you not, and you had internet access - you had had internet access to the Aqua account. A. That was - I said that earlier, Aqua account, yes. Q. You had internet access to the Aqua account? A. Well I did not have - yes. Q. You did have it. A. Well, Sureet - yeah. Q. But Sureet had access because you had given her --- A. Yeah, for Aqua. Q. --- the details of how to get into the Aqua internet. A. Yeah, that was for Aqua. Q. So you accept that? So I do not have to go to the documents that show that. A. No, Aqua - I remember Aqua - access to Aqua. JUDGE LEECH: Just so I have got a proper note, you accept that you had internet access to the Aqua account? A. Aqua account, yeah, which was closed, obviously, later on.”
“He thinks we are silly. Give him one off payment, his locum and rent reimbursement”
“If you look, “He thinks we’re silly, give him one-off payment, his locum and rent reimbursement.”
“The final decision to switch accountants came shortly after I had a conversation with Mr Fonseka in spring 2016 (when he was starting work to prepare the next accounts due in June) when he told me that I was taking approximately£190,000 in drawings. I said to him that this could not be right because that figure was far higher than I was actually taking out of the business. But while I was having the meeting, Jaswant came into my room at the surgery as she had just realised Mr Fonseka had arrived. She asked a series of questions of Mr Fonseka on other subjects, and Mr Fonseka also became silent and evasive when I asked about the drawings figure he had mentioned. But I now believe he knew or at least suspected more than he said. At the time I felt unhappy I was not getting answers and this encouraged me to switch accountants.”
“I have undertaken further searches of my NHS email and personal email and identified one email to my accountant in April 2017 (six months prior to the dismissal of the Claimant and Sareet Sidhu) in which I expressed my concerns about the amount being paid to the Claimant and the lack of profits that I was receiving from the practice. I have disclosed this document and it is have been [sic] sent to CLP.”
“Only thing she done for me help with ?35k to pay Ali which as far as I know she has taken back.”
“5. Whether the word “she” refers to the Claimant, and, if not, who it refers to. 5. Yes Claimant 6. Whether “Ali” refers to Dr Ali and, if not, who Dr Rathor was referring to as “Ali”. 6. Yes Dr Ali 7. On what date or dates Dr Rathor contends that “she done for me help with ?35k”, and all facts and matters which Dr Rathor will rely on at trial as to the basis and/or terms of agreement in relation to such “help” 7. Do not remember the day or date, all I remember is she mentioned that the practice had to pay Dr Ali his locum fee, salary and rent, she told me there was not enough money in the practice, this was a verbal conversation and have not seen any transactions.”
“13. My main concern was to deal with the complaint since according to this communication from NHS England, the Practice had been paid the rent by NHS England and that this rent we had not paid to Dr Ali. The amount which NHS England used to reimburse the Practice was£3,500 per month but the amount which I had agreed to pay to Dr Ali by way of rent for his Premises was£5,000 per month. I was also concerned about the demand letter which Jaswant had received from Dr Ali’s Solicitors. 14. I asked Jaswant how my Practice would raise the money within a short period and deal with this complaint and meet the demand for payment. She told me not to worry and that if necessary she could take care of it with her own money and if she did so, she would take the money back by paying herself back from the Practice’s bank account. I was happy with this since it would deal with the matter. I was very busy at the time with a very heavy workload and had handed the running of the finances to Jaswant and Sareet and although I now wish I had been more engaged with financial matters, given the trust I had in Jaswant I just assumed the short term cash flow problem had been overcome and I did not check what had happened. I do not know whether Jaswant had actually paid Dr Ali, but just assumed he had been paid one way or the other. The reason I put before my reference to the amount of 35k a question mark (? 35K) was because I did not know what had happened or how much (if anything) Jaswant had paid herself and then taken back. Jaswant never said to me after that that she had paid something herself and was owed money, so I assumed she was not at that point owed anything.”
“Q. Well, now, let us look back at what we saw in this email, which says, “Only thing she done for me, help with? 35,000 to pay Ali, which, as far as I know, she has taken back.”
“Q. No, Doctor. “Only thing she done for me, help with? 35,000.”
“Q. Doctor, it makes it look as though you are telling Yasin that Jaswant lent you money which she has taken back from Natio, and that the sum of money that he is going to find she lent you for the purposes of the accounts he is doing is round about 35,000. And he needs to know that because he is about to be preparing the accounts. A. No. Well, that is true, I just wanted to check that, was there any money if something like this happened or not. I have never taken any money from her, I have not taken any money from her. Q. And now, you are giving evidence to the court. You had a subsequent conversation with Yasin where you told him that, actually, you did not mean that, you meant that, in fact, she had not lent you any money. A. That is true. Q. You had a subsequent conversation, and yet, neither you nor Yasin refer to this email, or to the supposed conversation that you have told about for the first time this afternoon, either in your witness statements – there is no mention of this email until the one served on Friday night – or in the AMS report, to which Yasin was one of the authors. It is right, is it not, Doctor, that you and Yasin knew full well what had been said in the email of 2 April and you two decided you were just going to wipe it from history? A. That is completely not true. Q. Because you both knew that, if the court were to see this, “The only she had done, help me? 35,000 to pay Ali, which, as far as I know, she has taken back” is absolutely spot on Jaswant’s cases that she lent you money to pay Dr Ali, namely,£60,000 , and she took it back from Natio because you had authorised her to take it back from Natio. A. That is a completely untrue explanation.”
“Q. So you saw it, you said nothing and for the very first time, on the night of the last business day before you start your cross-examination, after having put in nine witness statements and never mentioned it, you come up with a story that the rent was actually£5000 a month, doctor. A. That is the truth. Q. And the reason you did that, doctor, is because you are trying to justify your false case that “?35,000” is not a query about the precise figure, it is a query about whether Jaswant lent any money at all. A. Not true, sir. Q. And the fact is, doctor, that this contemporaneous evidence, including the letter from Senstone, which we only got from Annexys, shows when compared with your evidence, that your evidence is false, does it not? A. Not true, sir. Q. Your evidence does not correspond with the contemporaneous evidence, doctor, does it? A. Not true, sir. Q. And you were trying to mislead the court with false evidence, as recently as last Friday night. A. Not true, sir. Q. And this, Dr Rathor, is just one example of many, where you have demonstrated wilful dishonesty --- A. Not true, sir. Q. --- to this court. A. Not true, sir. Q. And you have been caught out by access by our team to contemporaneous evidence that you sought to conceal. A. I absolutely deny, sir. Q. And your false narrative doctor, against my clients, designed to ruin them and their family was a dishonest act on your part, was it not? A. Not true, sir. Q. I have no further questions, my Lord.”
“Q. Yes. “And I trust you’re well” and he attaches an email of the following, and the 4th entry is the breakdown of drawings and he then he makes it absolutely clear, that there are the outgoings not to be treated as business expenses. In other words, they are not matters which should be included in the Natio accounts to reduce its profits. Do you understand that? A. Yes. I do understand that. Q. And then, we see from the upper email - apologies, is his included the attachment this time. Now, you plainly received this, not once but twice. You got two emails, because it went to two email addresses. Can you explain, why nowhere in your evidence have you mentioned that email being sent to you, attaching the drawing schedule? A. I will be very honest. I cannot even remember seeing this thing. I know it had been sent to me and there is - it says that but I - sent to Jaswant as well, so she knew about it Q. I am not interested in Jaswant, Dr Rathor. I am interested in what you knew. And you plainly knew this, didn’t you? A. It does say that there are attachments there. I cannot - I honestly cannot remember. Q. Well --- A. So I do know about Jaswant mentioning to me about this, yes. Q. In April 2017? A. Yes. Q. You do remember that? A. Well, he - he said to me that the costs were very high. Q. Yes, well that is fine. A. And that is the reason why I paid - I remember, a tax for£60,000 Q. No- wait. Let us break that down, Dr Rathor. He told you about the monthly payments of 2,900 in April 2017. A. Right. Q. Is that what you are saying? A. Yes. Q. Thank you. Why did you not say that anywhere in any of your witness statements? A. I am only going by what I remember at that time.”
“A. I was extremely scared, and I do know Jaswant’s history. She had me, she had had me. No please, do not shake your head. I was very scared, you can see. Now, and I am sure, lots of GPs will take this lesson from me. I trusted her, OK and I was scared of her because I’m running a busy practice and I knew Jaswant was capable and this is the exact reason it took me so long and - and I can see the consequences because I challenge her I’m sitting in this witness box I should be seeing my patients, especially because of all the Coronavirus going on. So, I am sorry Mr Jory, but that is the thing. I was scared of Jaswant and I have read my statement the previous ones and there is twice I have mentioned this word, scared. It was not just only once, and I was scared of Jaswant.”
“A. As I said to you earlier, I may not even have looked at it in detail, and just passed it on. Q. Is that really your evidence to the court, that you did not know what your income was for the purposes of applying for a mortgage, and you just did not even have the slightest interest in seeing it – you just flipped it on to the mortgage broker? A. No, I have looked at – all I remember is I had the – a mortgage account and I knew how much was my income and my expenses. Q. Well, the unaudited accounts show the same figure. We have seen that. So therefore you knew that£195,000 was being treated as your drawings. So you agree that, do you? A. Yes, I do agree that.”
“You know we saved 80. I need 130 for deposit and 40 for stamp duty. I am trying some from someone else if I can.”
“Q. Do you see that? She has specifically drawn the accountant’s attention to the fact that she is referring to the loan 2,400 and the 500 is petty cash, and the reason she does that, doctor, is because of the original instructions you had given her which was to draw it out as 2,400 and then 500 in petty cash in relation to repaying herself for the loan of money she had made to you. That was your original instruction, was it not? A. Absolutely untrue. Q. And so she says to them, here, “loan.”
“Q. And, in actual fact, the accounts were the spreadsheet was acted on, because that is the information that was contained and used for the purpose of preparing the accounts to the end of July ‘17, which we have looked at, and your drawing schedule in your drawings in your accounts, that went to 291, and it was acted on, doctor, because you supplied those documents, that information, to the mortgage company so that the bank would rely on it, did you not? A. Again, that is something you need to ask when Mr Sidat comes but, of course, if the drawings were not specified then it will go towards mine, but that doesn’t happen wrongly. Q. But it was acted upon, was it not, because those figures were then sent by you to your mortgage broker specifically so that the bank would act upon them in deciding whether to give you a mortgage? A. Well, again, as I have said, I am not an accountant. You need to ask the accountants. Q. Well, that is not about an accountant. That is about --- A. Well, it is about an accountant because that is why you have an accountant, Sir. Q. Doctor, they were acted upon because you sent them to the mortgage broker, did you not? A. Yeah, well, they are a qualified accountant and I am sure they know what they are doing. Q. Well, I am going to suggest to you that Yasin knew exactly what he was doing, doctor, and so did you. A. Well, that is something you are – that is your impression.”
“Q Well, let me make it very easy for you. You remember the drawings schedule that AMS produced to you in April that you have seen now and you claim you did not see before. A Yes. Q Right. Have you seen it now? A Mmm, mmm. Q And it sets out month by month --- A Mmm, mmm. Q --- the transactions from the bank account which they are able to identify as potentially not being for business expenses, and if they are not for business expenses, then they are treated as your drawings. A Mmm, mmm. Q And so they produce a list and they seek your instructions as to whether they are legitimate business expenses, or whether they are your drawings. And I am suggesting to you they did exactly the same thing to prepare the August accounts, and that is how they were able to come up with those monthly figures to the nearest pound showing how much your drawings had been month by month over the course of the year. That was a historic record from the bank accounts. And they sent those to you in order for you to approve them because you were hurrying to get them to your mortgage company; so, you approved them and then you sent them to your mortgage company. A Mmm, mmm. Q And I am asking you why you only paid tax on income of 63,000. You must have wondered why that was the case, given you knew what the figure had been back in August. A As I said again, this needs to be asked by my accountants. I – because obviously I would pay the tax on something which I have taken the money out. Q Well, doctor, you are not able to help us. A Well, I did say I – I honestly do not know. I --- Q So, why for the summary judgment application were you putting forward accounts which showed you had only had drawings of 63,000 and not drawing to the court’s attention the fact that you had actually shown your mortgage broker accounts for the same period which showed that you had had 291,000, or whatever it was, 291,800, which included the amounts that Jaswant was claiming were repayments for the loan, or subsequently on account of the partnership. A So, again, I cannot answer a question that I did not know the answer.”
“Q. But, you provided this document, Doctor, to show how the surgery had debts didn’t you, that was your reason for showing it? A. Yes. Q. So, you were relying on it to show us that the surgery had debts? A. Yes. Q. And you weren’t saying oh it didn’t have that debt, because there is a dispute about it, you were saying it did have that debt? A. Well, the surgery still has debts to Community Health Partnerships, yes.”
“Q. And isn’t the actual truth that because you never mentioned anything about high salaries or the 2,900, there was absolutely no reason for her to say anything like that on the 2nd of October? A. No, I definitely talked about the high salaries. I did not talk about that 2,900, but I did talk about the high salaries and that was - that’s how this all triggered and I spoke to Peninsula the next day.”
“If Jaswant did not lend Dr Rathor the£60,000 that she claims she did in January 2014, then of course it follows that she is lying when she says Dr Rathor instructed her to repay herself in monthly instalments of£2,900 after Dr Rathor took over the Northolt Family Practice in September 2014. If however, Dr Rathor knew about those withdrawals, for example because she knew as a result of drawings schedules prepared by her accountants in respect of each of the relevant three years, then the obvious conclusion is that [she] had authorised them, and that she must have done so in order to repay Jaswant’s loan until that was repaid, and thereafter on account of Jaswant’s entitlement to partnership drawings pending the preparation of partnership accounts as Jaswant states….”
“It is an extraordinary feature of Jaswant’s account that her paragraph 36 list of cash withdrawals is supported by only 4 pages of bank statements, which were obviously carefully extracted from multiple accounts to support the Claimant’s case and, in calculated fashion, going no further. The court will be well aware of the steps required of the Defendant to obtain access to Jaswant and Sareet’s bank statements. As regards these 4 pages of bank statements, it is Jaswant’s evidence that they were obtained by her husband going to the bank to request bank statements for the purposes of these proceedings. Mr Sidhu stated that he had some of his accounts and was asked by his wife to go to the bank to get further statements [T 4/2, p.21E-23G]. Despite this, the statements disclosed are incomplete even within their limited date ranges, for example the statement at [5/43] being ‘page 2 of 6’. A statement of transactions produced on the basis of self-evidently highly restricted bank statement access should be viewed with extreme skepticism. The story set out in paragraph 36 of Jaswant’s statement is a cynical and calculated lie and an attempt to mislead the Court on the single most important factual issue in the case.”
“Only thing she done for me help with ?35k to pay Ali which as far as I know she has taken back.”
“You have always helped me in every way and I respect that”
“Nothing is impossible. I will always do what you want. No problem.” vii) I also accept Jaswant’s evidence that Dr Rathor asked her to describe the monthly payments as “loan” repayments in the 2017 Payments Schedule. I reject Dr Rathor’s evidence that she did not give these instructions because she saw the drafts of the 2017 Accounts only five days later and forwarded them to Rishi. Those accounts showed drawings of£291,815 . viii) Finally, on30 September 2014 a payment of£2,500 was made to Jaswant out of the Aqua account with the reference “LOAN”
“BR CARREPAIR MONEY”
“However, Dr Ali had given NFP a notice to quit in April 2015, and we had discussions with NHS England about moving the practice. Therefore Dr Rathor agreed that this would be the right time for me to be made a partner. I remember the conversation with her, which took place in her consulting room. She called me into her consulting room in June 2015 and told me that she had spoken to someone at NHS England and was making me a partner. She hugged me and told me that I was like a sister to her and that she could not thank me enough for everything that I had done for her. I cannot now remember the exact date in June 2015 that this happened, but I vividly recollect the conversation and the feeling of relief that she was going to keep to her promise.” “I asked her if there was anything that we needed to do to formally make me a partner, and she said "no". I was very happy that I was being made a partner and therefore from my point of view I became a partner on that date.” “However, from my point of view, I entered into a partnership with Dr Rather in June/July 2015 when she and I agreed that we were formally in a partnership for both practices. She and I agreed that we were partners and that once there was sufficient income, we would share the profits. She agreed that we would tell the NHS that we were partners, and that is why we signed the Partnership Details Form and why I asked Sareet to submit it to the NHS for us.”
“Mr Hood: This conversation is just invented, is it not? This never happened? Mrs Sidhu: No, Sir, not at all. Mr Hood: There was a moving of the practice, of course, was there not, that was at the forefront of Dr Rathor’s mind? The practice had to move, that was quite a big deal, was it not, logistically and for all sorts of reasons, it was quite a big deal? Mrs Sidhu: Dr Ali had given us notice, we were negotiating with NHS England, trying to, they would, if they would move Northolt into the health centre. Leech J: You said a moment ago, I think, that you thought that you were entitled to 50%. Mrs Sidhu: Yes, Sir. Leech J: Why did you think that? Mrs Sidhu: Sir, I thought it was equal partnership because of --- Leech J: I see. But were there any actual discussions between you and Dr Rathor about shares or 50/50 or equal partnership? Mrs Sidhu: Sir, when, when I had that discussion in June with her, when she had told me her thought, and I did ask her, is there any legal paperwork that we needed to do, and she said no. Leech J: So, there was no, you did not even discuss, well, she did not say to you, well I am giving you 50% of it, or you asked for 50% of it, there was no, nothing of that kind? Mrs Sidhu: I have not got it in black and white, Sir. I have not got an agreement, I did not -- Leech J: I know you have not got it in writing -- Mrs Sidhu: Yes, Sir. Leech J: I am just asking, in the course of your conversations, did you discuss a profit sharing? Mrs Sidhu: Sir, when we signed the contract on24 July 2015 with the NHS, I had a conversation with her, which is just before we moved into the health centre, that we would be equal partners. Leech J: So, that is when you signed the forms? Mrs Sidhu: Yes, Sir. Leech J: And just before you moved into the health centre? Mrs Sidhu: Yes, Sir, we moved into the health centre about August, Sir, and we signed the partnership in July.”
“Mr Hood: Now, if there was an issue, as you mention in paragraph 135, that you would only share profits once there was sufficient income, why did you not insist on partnership accounts so you could actually determine whether or not you had reached that point and could thereafter share profits? Mrs Sidhu: Sir, the main focus was to settle, get the patients settled, pay off all the debts and then it actually came to that amount that I would be my, the loan that I had given her, get back, and she had assured me that, when the loan repayment would have finished, she said we would sit down and we would discuss it, and we would sort it out, I was assured. But then she kept on changing her goalpost and she would always convince me, you don’t worry, she would say, I will get it sorted, I will get it sorted, and I trusted her.”
“Mr Hood: None of what you say about these conversations with Dr Rathor and her becoming a partner with Jaswant are not true, are they? They never took place. Mr Fonseka: Well, you can check with them. That is it. I, I would imagine NHS England, so you can ask them whether there was an application made, and that will prove whether there was one or not. To me, I mean, that is what I would do.”
“Dr Rathor originally assumed her signatures must have been forged, because she was not aware of the forms, but having been debarred from adducing expert handwriting evidence herself and having considered the handwriting evidence adduced by Jaswant, she took the view that instead of a forgery, she must have been distracted/tricked into signing the NHS forms. This was not a cynical change in case but a perfectly understandable one in the circumstances where a person does not recognise significant documents and has been the victim of a large scale misappropriation of funds.”
“MR JORY: Yes. From the – so, Doctor, it appears you signed it twice within a very short period of time. Whether you say it was on the 9th and you signed both of them, or whether it was the 9th and the morning of the 10th, but you were in surgery probably then. A. OK sir, all I am saying is when I signed those papers, I signed them with the change of address and also if Jaswant was sending these attachments and emails, she actually never copied me in into these emails. Q. I think that is some sort of submission is it Doctor that you want the Judge to infer from that, that she was actually disguising this process or concealing this process from you because otherwise she would have copied you into the attachments? But she was not copying in because she wanted to cover the tracks of what she was doing and if she copied you in that might blow it. Is that the reason you are saying that? A. Well – yes, 100 per cent. Q. So, that is part of your concealment and that is why I have got it as the ninth step in my series because you say she is all the time acting dishonestly and were not wanting you to know what is going on, that is your case. A. Yes. Q. And yet, she put this document in front of you for signing twice within 24 hours on the 9th, probably both occasions on the 9th, if not on the 9th, once on the 9th and once on the 10th. And all that time, she was taking the risk that you were actually going to read what was written immediately above your signature Doctor, was she? A. Well, all I can say sir, that she definitely done in a disguising way. I’m a busy doctor. I’ve signed it but she never mentioned to me anything about a partnership or copied me into this. Q. So, twice she managed to conceal parts of the document from you. Is that the answer? A. That’s the answer, yes. Q. And are you able to explain how she might have concealed from you what you were signing in a way that enabled you to correct the address on one version of it? A. That’s what I’m saying, I cannot remember. Q. Is it because it makes absolutely no sense Doctor that anybody could have concealed the relevant parts of this document from you given your handwriting in the address book box and your signature immediately below what is the critical sentence in the document. A. If I may say sir, as far as I am concerned, as a senior partner, this process was not transparent and it’s not that – Jaswant cannot add herself to a contract. I should be adding her to the contract so I should have been copied into every --- Q. That is why you signed it Doctor. A. No sir. No sir. This was not – this was not the correct process.”
“Q. Can you explain why that has been cut off that email, and there is a little number 4 there? A. Sorry, sir, which one is cut off? Q. The details from “With best wishes, Michael” down to NWLPCC. Do you see the bottom of the email back from Mike at 12.55? A. 12.55? Q. The email at 12.55. A. Mmm. Q. Everything underneath “with best wishes” has been cut off. Do you see that? A. Sorry, I am just reading it, sir. I cannot explain that. Q. So, you cannot explain that? Well, I am going to suggest that I can, Doctor. Do you see that, in fact, if you had produced this document directly from your computer without chopping it about, it would have shown the bottom of the email above it, which I am going to take you to now. The one that is the top of the page, “I have HR team dealing with issues.”
“I knew about the pMS contract for Northolt Family Practice.”
“Q. And, so he sent you the contracts. Not old contracts that had nothing to do with Jaswant, but the contracts that were to do with Jaswant because that is why, on page 817, he says, “It very much looks like Jaswant Sidhu is a nonclinical partner on both contracts.”
“So, if I am taking on a partner sir, number one, there has to be – you need to do criminal checks which is DBS, Disclosure and Barring Services, yeah, you have to get a certificate for that. You need two references. You need – you also need – she has to apply to CQC for a registration where the – if you look at the forms where it says “individual” because I did speak to the CQC, like a few weeks when we were here before, and I was told irrespective it’s a non-clinical partner, they have to cancel the pre-existing registration which is on an individual and that is another step you have to do. And once you have gone through all these steps then we have to sign a partnership agreement.”
“Natio became Mrs Sidhu’s employer as a result of Dr Rathor taking over the Northolt Family Practice.”
“It very much looks like Jaswant Sidhu is a non-clinical partner on both contracts.”
“There are underlying patterns and trends which are outlined below. This can only be seen when you look at the overpayments and underpayments on a cumulative basis, although some individual months this is also clear to see. (We reached these conclusions after examining the payroll records from Regency, which are appended to the witness statement from Mr Sidat accompanying this Report, and the bank statements for the Natio Health Care (UK) Ltd business account with Barclays, account no: 53337898 sort code 20-74-12, which statements are attached at Exhibit SR2 to the witness statement of Dr Rathor).”
“Dr Rathor and I met to talk about finances generally. I was concerned that I still hadn't started to receive a larger income from the practices despite the fact that she had made me a partner in June/July 2015. I also didn't want to continue working as hard as I had done in the past because I had become ill and I realised that I had actually missed out a great deal on bringing up my own children and taking part in their lives over the years. My grandchildren were starting to grow up and I agreed with Dr Rathor that I would reduce my hours of work. We agreed that I would start taking a higher pay of 40 per hour as part of the way of paying me towards the profits of the partneship, and we agreed that I would be paid for 40 hours per week. I was not unhappy about this, because at least there was some significant increase in income for me at last, even though it was not what I thought that I was entitled to, which was half of the profits of the partnership. But I had no idea what the profits were at this stage, and Dr Rathor said that we would sort everything in relation to drawings and partnership profits out once the accounts for Natio had been completed in 2017.”
“Mr Hood: That is simply an excuse to try to explain away your skimming off large amounts of money for yourself from the Natio account, is it not, that is what that is? Mrs Sidhu: No, Sir, not at all. Mr Hood: So, how would that situation benefit you unless you were thinking of ripping off the taxpayer, taxman? Mrs Sidhu: Well, Dr Rathor suggested it and she did, Sir, whenever I asked her, she said, we will sort it out, we will sort it out. That is all she would say to me, even when I wanted to, even when we were trying at the health centre where rent was not paid from 2013 and I would keep saying to her, let us pay this off, and she would say, no, we, she would get this written off. And there came a time when the landlords actually, they were emailing us all the time. In the end, I had to said to her, we have to pay this, and we put a payment plan in, Sir, from May ’16 to December ’16 where we would pay round about£300,000 to the, the landlords of the, of the health centre where we were based. That was more important, Sir, for me to pay the debts off than anything else. And even when we moved into the health centre in 2015, of August, we wanted the telephones and things connected because obviously the lines were only for Allenby and we wanted to put in lines for Northolt, the telephone line communication, and the company would not do it and they said that they were owed several thousand pounds. And we agreed a monthly payment plan with them and paid both debts off then, Sir.”
“Mr Hood: Paragraph 106, you say that Dr Rathor told you that she had agreed with Jaswant in December 2014 that part of her PA, her, part of her pay was on a PAYE basis and part of it was on a self employed basis. When do you say you had that conversation with Dr Rathor? Mr Fonseka: I cannot recall the exact time, but, or date, but I told her that you, you cannot pay Ms, yeah, Ms Sidhu for self employment. It had to, the whole thing had to be accounted on PAYE with her. I recall that conversation, yes. Mr Hood: Who do you say was present at that particular time when you had that conversation? Mr Fonseka: I cannot recall now. It may be, maybe Ms, Mrs Sidhu was present. I cannot confirm it.”
“A. Sir, when you say it is paid from all employment, that is fine. I am going through – I did not go into those details from all employment£5,250 . And then it says dividends, so I – as I said – I trusted Mr Fonseka, as well, and I did not know that the – this small amount came from a PAYE. Q. Well, now, Dr Rathor, that you do know that that is where it came from, do you want to withdraw the case that Jaswant was involved in a payroll fraud? A. No. I do not want to. Q. Because you see, Dr Rathor, it would be a very extraordinary fraud, would it not, which is going to be so easily found out by the accountant, who is going to have a conversation with you about your tax return. It would be a very extraordinary fraud, would it not? She is going to be found out? A. Well, they both knew each other. Q. Yes. But you are not suggesting there was collusion to defraud you? That case was not put to Mr Fonseka? Or are you suggesting that? A. No. They must have known. Q. Are you suggesting that he colluded with Jaswant to perpetrate a fraud on you? A. I am sorry, can you explain what colluded means, because I do not know that word. Q. Colluded? Conspired with her to get together --- A. Yes. Q. --- to defraud you. A. Yes. Q. And that Mr Fonseka did that with Jaswant? A. Yes.”
“MR JORY: Well, the position is, Dr Rathor, is it not, that at Aqua you had also left money in the business, you and your husband? Ascribed to you as salaries but you did not get the regular payment? A. Because there was not even enough money in the business. Q. Do you just left it there? A. Well, there was – I had to pay the staff and everybody first, yes. Q. So --- A. We did not even take the money. Q. So if, for a hypothetical moment, if your senior member of staff had simply transferred the same position as it existed at Aqua, into Natio, would that be an honest explanation for what happened? A. So, as I mentioned before, it is something I was aware of. If I knew it, that was fine. But what – with Aqua I knew because my accountant was doing the payroll. But, here, the accountant was not doing the payroll – please, let me finish – and Jaswant was using an external payroll person which I did not know (inaudible) and I was unaware of it and that – that is something I am confessing, that I was not aware of her putting my husband and myself on the payroll and she never, actually, said to me, OK Doctor, there you go, you on the payroll, that is fine. But I was not aware of it. Q. Can I go back to my question, please. Would the senior employee transferring precisely the same position as had happened at Aqua into Natio from September 2014 be the honest explanation for what happened? A. No. Just because somebody was senior employee does not give them the right to do, because at least she should have spoken to me. Q. Well, let us say for a moment you are right, which I do not accept and she did not speak to you, she just did it. A. Well, she should not have done it. Q. Do you say that that makes her dishonest? A. Of course.”
“Q. Now, was there any agreement that you be paid for those hours rather than have the time off in lieu that is mentioned in your contract? A. No, this was discussed with Dr Rathor and she had authorised it. Q. I see and approximately when was that? Can you recall? A. This was in October, because a lot of work needed to be done, so yes. Q. In October 2017? A. Continuously, yes.”
“Mr Hood: 10B. Page 485, please, Mrs Sidhu. Now you’re in charge of dealings with this Natio account, aren’t you? Or, sorry, weren’t you, at the time? You had visibility on a very regular basis as to the financial position of the account and the balance of the account. Yes? Mrs Jaswant Sidhu: Yes, Sir. Mr Hood: So the cashflow problems you refer to that meant that there had to be instalment payments instead of a lump sum cheque, those obviously were known to you. Can you look at page 485? There you see the April bank statement for Natio. Mrs Jaswant Sidhu: Yes -- Mr Hood: See -- Mrs Jaswant Sidhu: Sir. Mr Hood: The starting balance is£123,763 ? And I think your answer was it was about mid April that it was decided because of cashflow problems it would be paid in instalments. Look down at the balance on 13 April. It is£119,000 odd. Yeah? It goes up to£175,000 by 18 April. Over the page. Look down the right hand column. It is in excess of£150,000 balance throughout April 2017, isn’t it? Mrs Jaswant Sidhu: Yes, Sir. Mr Hood: So your evidence that this was because of cashflow problems is completely false, isn’t it? Mrs Jaswant Sidhu: Sir, that is what Dr Rathor asked. She said I would rather not pay it in a lump sum, I would rather you take it over the next five months. And that is exactly what we did, Sir. Mr Hood: But your evidence was it was because of cashflow problems. Mrs Jaswant Sidhu: Sir -- Mr Hood: This doesn’t show cashflow problems, does it, this -- Mrs Jaswant Sidhu: Sir -- Mr Hood: Statement? Mrs Jaswant Sidhu: This, looking at this, it doesn’t, Sir, but that is what she had agreed with me, Sir. Mr Hood: Why did you say cashflow problems just then? Mrs Jaswant Sidhu: Sir, when we were talking, that is what she said. She said take it over five months and we just leave it at that. And….”
“Q. Yes? And as his Lordship points out, there are then, from May until September, there are five months when, on their case, you agreed that they should have an extra£2,000 by way of bonus. Do you deny that? A. I never agreed. Q. But you do accept, doctor, do you not, that, throughout that period when they were receiving the bonus and it was going through the bank account, you had visibility of transactions because you had the mobile banking app? So you could see, on a month by month basis, what they were taking. A. Well, I did make it clear that, yes, I did have partial. I could see some transactions going but I have not fully investigated that. Q. You could see all the transactions going to Jaswant and Sureet and so, if you were looking at investigating them, those would be the transactions which your eye would be drawn to most obviously, are they not? Yes? A. Yeah. Yeah, I have seen the transactions, yes. Q. Yes. So you saw the transactions, at the time, from May until September, where how much they were taking out each month. A. Mmm. Q. You saw that at the time? A. Well --- Q. Month by month? A. Well, I did have – I could only see the transactions since. Q. But you could see what they were each taking each month, at the time, over that period, yes? A. Well, I am not even sure, at that time, if I could see who is taking what because, on the mobile app, I was just familiarising myself on the app. Q. Doctor, we all have mobile apps these days. A. Well, my --- Q. The mobile app shows transactions. You can look at the transactions on a month by month basis and it says exactly what is on the bank statement, does it not? It tells you who the transaction has been paid to. So if it has been paid to them, you know that. A. Well, that was, as I said earlier, it was the first time I had it and I was trying to familiarise myself and, also, I had to, kind of, confirm. Q. Well, doctor, just the simple point, I think you did admit it before but, on a month by month basis, you saw the amounts of money they were paying themselves from the mobile app? A. Yes. Q. Yes. JUDGE LEECH: You accept that? You saw that? A. Well, my Lord, it was going but, as I said, I will be honest with you now, I cannot remember, but I could see the money was going from the accounts, yes. JUDGE LEECH: To them? To Jaswant and to Sureet? A. Again, I cannot remember, but, I think, yes.”
“I saw she gets paid£5800 and I guess after tax”
“Q.…Now doctor, you would have realised that that was more than the figures you’d seen in April. And the reason it was more is because you had told each of them to take a bonus of£2,000 per month for the next five months, hadn’t you? A. Not true, sir. Q. And the reason you told them to take it in instalments is because after you had seen the amount of money in the Natio account you and Yasin decided that you were going to take out at least£80,000 towards the purchase of your new house from what was in the bank account, and so – although you didn’t tell them – you didn’t want them to take out£20,000 from that account in one go. And you wanted them to spread it over instalments, didn’t you? A. That’s not true. Q. And that’s why they added£2,000 each to their wage payments for the next five months, isn’t it? A. I disagree. Q. And you saw that in May. A. I disagree.”
“Q. But you’re saying now that Jaswant and Sureet weren’t entitled to those wages, they were stealing money --- A. That is true. Q. --- from the company? A. That is true. Q. So why didn’t you tell your accountants that at the time? A. As I said, the information was not given by me to them. Q. Why didn’t you tell them that at the time since you had seen the bank statements, you saw that that’s what they had required to do the accounts and you had, you say to his Lordship, genuine concerns about the fact that you’d seen those wages going out and that you thought that they were stealing money? A. I cannot answer it.”
“I asked barclays to give me a mortgage of 650k. Can you please advise me if I can transfer money from natio to saving time being as it will look good. Also I believe that is my profits. Why she keeps all the money in the natio…”
“Q. Can you just tell me why they were – why you – why Dr Rathor agreed to increase your salary during the year and not at the year end? A. There were particular things that happened in other times that my salary – that my hourly, basically, had increased. So, for the first one that was to£27 was in January 2015 and that was because I was getting paid my normal wage for Northolt Family Practice, but I was being paid separately for the work that I was doing for the Allenby Clinic and I did not want to continue to be paid in lump sums, and when I discussed this with Dr Rathor and Jas in 2015, I was – sorry – so when I discussed it with them in January 2015, I had asked for approximately£1,000 extra per month for the burden of the extra practice and all the extra work, and we came to an agreement at£27 . Q. And, then the increase at 34,000? A.£30 , sir, was the next one. Q.£30 was the next one. A. That was shortly after our CQC visit. That was discussed and agreed in August 2016 and that was to£30 . Q. That was shortly after the CQC visit? A. Yes. So, between 27 and 30 about a year and a half (inaudible). And, then the final one was discussed in November 2016. Q. So, that is to 34, is it not? A. Correct, and that 34 was agreed because Jas was initially on£34 an hour when she was taken over by Dr Rathor, effectively, and it was agreed because with her going off sick and not being well, and so forth, that I would be on the same pay that she was getting because, effectively, I was taking on her role as well.”
‘MR HOOD: The figure that you saw AMS took, which was treating the five lots of£2,000 per month as continuing and forming part of your gross salary every month, that figure comes to 94,910, which is the exact figure that you put as your gross salary – or your income, I should say – on the credit card application. How does that remarkable coincidence come about? A. I am not sure about the report, but that is where my figures came from. Q. Right. So, you have sat down and you have added up what you made from the rental property, added that to the bonuses you actually received, but just as five bonuses and not continuing, and all that added up, by coincidence, to 94,910. That is what you did, is it? A. I added my figures up and the figure that I put down is what I would have come to.’
“Mr Hood: So21 April 2017 , Mr Shah, from AMS, writes to you, saying he’s assisting Yasin in preparing the year end accounts, and you’ve forwarded some requested information. Following on from the information you’ve provided, he has a few final queries, and you see there he sets out a number of cheques, cheque numbers. “Could you please provide details for the below?”
“Mr Hood: Do you have any bank statements or anything to show that you withdrew this sum in cash? Mrs Jaswant Sidhu: Sir, the builders were appointed by Dr Rathor, and the works were, Sir, nearly£55,000 , and I know they were to be most of the money, majority of the money she asked me to pay was in cash. Mr Hood: Do you have any documentary evidence you want to rely on to show you handing over this cash to the builder? Mrs Jaswant Sidhu: Sir, they were given to the builder, cash, at Dr Rathor’s instruction, Sir, because she, I was project managing the building, Sir, for her. Mr Hood: Why did you not make a bank to bank transfer of£6,850 with the reference building work? Mrs Jaswant Sidhu: Sir, because they wanted cash. She transferred that to me. Every occasion, Sir, they wanted cash. That was the agreement they had with Dr Rathor, Sir. Mr Hood: Right. Two questions arising out of that. One, why didn’t you take cash out of the Natio account? Mrs Jaswant Sidhu: Sorry, Sir? Mr Hood: Why didn’t you just, if they, if the builders wanted cash, why did you not just withdraw cash from the Natio account? Mrs Jaswant Sidhu: Sir, she would ask me to write a cheque out. She’ll misdescribe this to the accountant so that it goes against the expenses of the practice, Sir. Mr Hood: Ah, this is part of the fraud, is it, that the two of you were supposedly committing? Mrs Jaswant Sidhu: Sir, she asked me to, and that is what I did, because I trusted her. Mr Hood: You trusted someone who’s acting that dishonestly? Mrs Jaswant Sidhu: Sir, I would do anything for her. I would always say to her that I will always do what she wants. I just wanted to help her, Sir, because we were very, very close.”
“Q. Yes. So, you want to ask me, and you are the client, whether he, Pardeep, gave her an invoice. If Pardeep had drawn up an invoice, it would have been directed to his client. That was you, Doctor. Do you understand that? So, you answer the question rather than me. Did Pardeep give you an invoice? A. That is what I am saying. So, there was no invoice for 4,600. Q. Where is the invoice that he gave you then, if you say it is not for 4,600, Doctor? A. I did not know that this amount was paid to him. Q. Doctor, you did not have an invoice from Pardeep because you had agreed to do a cash job with him. That was your agreement direct with Pardeep. A. Well, all I am saying is, that 4,600 I did not authorise with Jaswant.” “MR JORY: Now, Doctor, 21 August what we have got is – on 21st we have got another payment£2,000 coming from the children’s account ending 673. A. Yes. Q. Yes. And then going to pay Pardeep£2,000 . Do you see that? A. Yes, I do. Q. So, you are not disputing that that was authorised by you? A. I am disputing that that was authorised. Q. OK. So, there was no authorisation to pay Pardeep£2,000 ? A. No. Q. So, you have known about this case for at least two years. You have known about the importance of arriving at the correct figure that you spent on your building works. A. Mmm. Q. Why haven’t you called Pardeep to come and give evidence to tell us what he was paid? That would resolve the issue very appropriately, wouldn’t it? A. Well, as I said, I do not have the time and also, Pardeep’s phone number – I do not even have his phone number. Q. Well, what enquiries have you made to try and find him? A. As I said, I am really short of time and yes, in future, when I am finished with this case, I will do it.”
“5 new valleys£1800 Staircase upgrade£500 Air conditioning guy charged£175 Windows upgrade 445.£250 Total£2725 ”
“We gave him£5,000 on wed. He has taken£7,500 already. I think he is taking the cake. Also on wed we will give him another£3,000 . That will be the third of the money.”
“Q. Will you explain to me then, please, where we have seen the£12,500 , where you say that£12,500 came from, that is referred to in the middle text message. “We gave him£5,000 , he had£7,500 already”
“…Dr Rathor knew that my husband's father had died and that he had left my husband a significant amount of money and land in India, She asked me to lend her£33,000 in rupees and she said that she would repay me. She explained to me that she wanted to spend the money building works for her property called "Rathor Villa". I asked her to give me some money in advance of her going and she specifically asked me to write cheques to myself for the money that she would receive in India. She borrowed a total of£33,000 in cash from me before going to India in August 2016 and specifically instructed me not to take the full amount back until she told me to. She would then instruct me when to write a cheque for myself and how much. The total payments received back to me were just in short of£33,000 because of the exchange rate that we worked out.”
“I did not say that she would receive it in the UK and then take it to India and she knows that this was not the arrangement. The money was delivered to Dr Rathor’s family as and when it was needed over this period.”
“Leech J: I’m getting rather confused. So cheque 52 is money you took out of the account, the Natio account, isn’t it? Mrs Jaswant Sidhu: The cheque was made to me, Sir, my … Leech J: And you took it out to give to Dr Rathor? Mrs Jaswant Sidhu: But it was part of the payment that was agreed, that she, she would be given£28,000 in India and£3,000 here, Sir. Leech J: But this was her money that was coming out of this account. Mrs Jaswant Sidhu: Yes, Sir, but she would have put it towards the expenses, Sir, that is why she asked me to write that cheque, when it was misdescribed to the accountant, Sir.”
“Q. Didn’t you think that was relevant to say in evidence, in relation to the building works that you say you did not have done, to say, “I was actually thinking of having some building works done. Here are the architectural drawings, but I can show with a report from a surveyor in India that those drawings – those works – were never done”
“Hope you’re well You said that there may be some money for me for the house Let me know how much and when Thanks”
“Q. So your evidence is just, let me be clear about this, you do not know what you were referring to, but you speculate that it was referring to some house you were thinking about buying? A. Yes. Q. Why, Doctor, wouldn’t that be a matter for you to go to a mortgage broker to consider about how you were going to fund that property? A. I need my own money for the deposit. Q. Well, had you been to a mortgage broker to discuss this purchase, by this time? A. I cannot remember. Q. And if you had been looking for the deposit, you would know how much deposit you were looking for. And so, you would have referred to some money for the deposit, wouldn’t you? A. Well, as I said, I have not specified at all and I cannot even remember. So I was just trying to check if there was enough money in the account.”
“Dr Rathor's son studied medicine in Romania in Bucharest. She explained to me that she had to give him€5,000 every year as his course fees in cash and also living expenses of about€500 per month. She asked me to give her cash and said that she would pay me back by cheque. He would return to university at the end of September every year and during September, I gave her in excess of£5,200 (which was to last him for his fees and a couple of months for his rent and living expenses). We agreed that I should receive this money in two cheques of£3,800 . I also recall that Ranwant was going on a trip to France and that Dr Rathor needed some cash in order to give to him for this trip.”
“As he was studying in Romania his tuition fees were much less than in the UK – SR5, p. 1405 is a confirmation from his university in Romania that the tuition fees were 3200 Euros a year payable in 3 instalments….Given his modest tuition fees, the money he got from Natio, and the money he got from my personal account it is absurd to say there was any need for me to ‘borrow’£12,728 from Jaswant for my son over one year living in Romania.” “See above for Ranwant Rathor. I do not know remember (sic) exactly how much I gave him because I am aware that he text me on30 September 2015 and asked me to transfer£2,000 to his account and to give him£2,000 in cash. My recollection is that I gave Dr Rathor more in cash for Ranwant.”
“Q. You must have told her at some point that he was studying in Bucharest. Presumably, that was when he initially was going out there. Because did he get to Romania before he realised, he was not going to study at Bucharest? A. So, as I have said – so it was 2012. I went with him. We went Bucharest for a few days and after that he moved to Arad. So, by 2015 he was actually in Arad for a few years. He was there for three years. Q. And you cannot explain – although you accept that the English speaking course is far more expensive than the Romanian speaking course --- A. Yes, I agree. Q. --- for some reason, your son who was on the English speaking course, did not have to pay the English speaking course fees, he paid the Romanian speaking fees. A. So, again, I cannot remember (inaudible) as I said, one thing could be he had – maybe it was something – I do not know but this fee was much less and it kind of shocked me as well. But it was good for me that it was not that expensive. But, yes. He did pay this amount. It is true. Q. Well, you see Doctor, it all sounds very peculiar. A. Well, it may sound peculiar to you Sir. But if you actually go out to Romania and you go to one place to another, everything is peculiar there. Q. Well, you see Doctor, I am going to suggest to you that in fact, you did tell Jaswant that his fees were€5,000 a year. And you asked her to provide cash for you for those fees. That is what you told her. Whether he spent all that money on his fees, or he did not, that is what you told her. A. OK. So, the first part is untrue. The latter part – when I did ask her for cash because again, I did not have enough money to my account, so when I asked her if she should have taken it from the Natio account, and then that was purely because my son had to convert the euros into the Romanian money. That is the reason. And you get a better rate if you was here than I guess it was in Romania. So, it was easier for him to take euros and then convert into leu, than here.”
“Q. Now, this is what Jas explains against cheque 44, which was for£1498 . She says, see above for Ranwant. That is to do with his university fees and living expense, etc. I do not – now, I think that should be – remember, exactly how I gave Ranwant because I am aware that he text me on30 September 2015 and asked me to transfer£2,000 to his account. And to give him£2,000 in cash. Do you see that? A. Yes. Q. Do you accept that he did ask for not only£2,000 into his Metro account, but£2,000 in cash? A. Yes. He may have asked, yes. Q. And that Jaswant gave him that? A. Well, it was not Jaswant should have given, she should have transferred from my account. Q. Well, given that – let’s take it in two stages. Do you deny that she gave him the£2,000 ? A. The cash? Q. Yes. A. That Jaswant gave me the cash, yes. Q. Well, whichever. But she provided it, let me use a neutral term. A. Yes. But she would have taken it from the Natio account.”
“Q. Well, you see Doctor, you are making a big thing about the fact that Jaswant took cash out. But I am going to suggest to you why you lied to Jaswant to take the money out of the Natio bank in cash and put it into her account, is because it gave you a great deal of flexibility at the year end to tell the accountants what the money had been used for. Because the account itself – the Natio account did not say in relation to all these transactions, where the money was going. It was just cash. And that gave you a great deal of flexibility when it came to telling your accountants what it had gone on. A. Untruthful.”
“Thanks for the money”
“That is a payment to Mrs Mall and that is the monthly amount actually that you pay your domestic couple, is it not? A. No sir, that is absolutely untrue, no. Q. And, that is why you paid them£1500 . A. No, this was - no. Q. Well, why did you pay them£1500 , Doctor? A. OK, because when they started with me I used to pay them like£75 like a day, and then it was increased and, somehow, what she said to me, that there was some back payment, and that's why I had to pay this amount to her. Q. But you would have had records that would of suggested whether she had a back payment owed to her or not, would you not? A. Yeah, but they - they kept the record and I trusted them, yes. Q. So, they kept a record, so you could of asked for that record for these proceedings. A. Well, if I was told then I could of asked for it. Q. And your counsel put to Jaswant that they were only paid£100 a week. A. That's true. Q. And it was suggested to her, when she said by reference to the 36,000 - sorry, the 3,600, was she really suggesting they had not been paid for 36 weeks. A. Well, there was a time when I did not pay them for a long time. Q. Are you really suggesting that they had not been paid for 15 weeks, Doctor? A. I am - I am really suggesting, sir. Q. And, what evidence do you have to support that? They went on working for you for 15 weeks, which is over three months, almost four months --- A. Yeah. Q. --- without pay? A. Yeah, it is true. Q. Well, that is your evidence, it is true, is it? A. Yes, it is, it is true. Q. And so, where are your mobile messages from them, saying: "Doctor, could you pay us, please?" A. They - as I said to you, sir, they did - they - they worked for me for 10 years.”
“The final cheque disclosed so far, cheque number 100071 for£1,000 , which Jaswant made out payable to Sareet, came on26 April 2017 . This was at the same time I had realised the balance of the account was healthy after my trip to the bank and asked Jaswant and Sareet to transfer the£80,000 to my son (as explained above). This cheque to Sareet was made out on the 26th April, but only cashed on10 May 2017 – the day after the final transfer for£50,000 to my son and after£15,000 had come in from NHS England via the Sole Trader Account on 9 May.”
“Q. When did you find out that they’d gone to Meera’s mother’s house, doctor? A. That’s when Meera told me later on. Q. Yes, my question was when? A. I can’t remember, sir. Q. Well, could you give us a rough idea, was it before the summary judgment application? A. I honestly cannot remember. Q. Did it happen at all? A. Yes, it did go to Meera’s mum’s house. Q. Why didn’t you, when Meera told you, say, “This is really important because I didn’t know about thousands of pounds worth of product going to your mother’s house, could I speak to your mother, please to find out about this”? A. I’m sorry, sir, but I can’t answer that because I didn’t think there was a need for me to speak to her mother.”
“The Vitality Health Insurance Policy only extended to Jaswant and Sareet, not to anyone else employed at the practices, nor to myself. It is unknown in my experience for an NHS GP surgery to pay for private health cover as part of a salary package for NHS administrative staff at this level. It is correct that, as Jaswant's GP, I signed off the forms to enable her to get treatment from Vitality, but I thought that this was a private insurance scheme she had paid for herself. I cancelled the policy as soon as I became aware of it in October 2017. Also, any benefit in kind received by employees should, of course, have been included in writing as part of their employee files and the accountants/ payroll informed accordingly – this was not done.”
“Q. Do you accept that you didn’t pay tax on your Bupa payments? A. Sir, I pay company tax and everything, so I’m not sure how it is calculated but it’s not my intention to hide anything from Natio which is going, you could --- Q. I think that’s not the point that is being put to you. It is a personal tax matter, is it, that you get a benefit in kind from your employer? A. Sir, that’s something I can check with my accountant, sir. I - I never kind of thought about it, but I would have thought so that that account is a part of my tax payments. Q. You think this account is a part of your tax payments? A. Yes, it should be.”
“You mentioned about private healthcare, and I've seen evidence that Sareet's been paying something like£356.17 per month out of-, out of the clinic account. Do I recall that you mentioned about making a contribution to a healthcare, but not authorising that amount? SR: No, because, to be very honest, like, I can only-, I can just give you my example. So, my, my one costs maybe£70 ,£80 a month, okay? So, all T said to them was, if they want, like, obviously I can contribute, like, maybe£50 or whatever. But what I did not know was, I mean I only found out when I got access to the bank accounts, that Jaswant was paying around£350 , and Sareet was paying around£100 . So, between both of them they were paying up to£500 a month- Wow. SR: So I don't know what cover they had taken. It is astonishing. You know. I mean, I mean, that's equal to minimum of five to six people's healthcare, private healthcare. I understand, and in fairness, by your surprise of it, I'm guessing, but I'd like you to confirm, did you ever authorise that level of money being taken? SR: No, I never authorised that, no.”
“MR JORY: It is more or less. It is not quite the right figures, but my point isn’t really what the figures are. It’s what the HR consultant’s being told for the grievance procedure, this disciplinary, because Dr Rathor is contrasting and saying, “Why would I agree to that sort of level of premium when all I’m paying is 70 to 80”
“If the Court concludes that Dr Rathor invented this story about Jaswant having perpetrated a sustained and complex fraud against her – indeed the sort of fraud that would have needed a criminal mastermind - then it follows that Dr Rathor must have had a motive for doing so. That motive was to disguise the fact that she borrowed£60,000 from Jaswant and in return offered her a partnership. In some way Dr Rathor had to overcome the problem that, unless she could explain how it was that she did not know that the monthly withdrawals of£2,900 that Jaswant had openly taken from the Natio account over three years and which Dr Rathor had treated as personal drawings by her, then it was rather obvious that Jaswant would be believed in relation to her case that she had loaned£60,000 on the promise of a partnership – being the very partnership which her solicitors had mentioned in their letter of4 October 2017 [7A/225] and which formed the basis of her claim as set out in the Claim Form.”