Cheryl Plummer v Stephen Flattery [2025] EWHC 1311 (Ch)

[2025] EWHC 1311 (Ch)Case No PT-2025-000241(Case No: J10CL141/EN38/2024)IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICECHANCERY DIVISIONBUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALESPROPERTY, TRUSTS & PROBATE LISTVenue Royal Courts of Justice, Rolls Building, Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NLDate 28/05/2025
Before
MR JUSTICE MILES
Between
CHERYL PLUMMERClaimantSTEPHEN FLATTERYDefendant
Jibreel Tramboo (direct access) for Claimant for The Defendant did not appear and was not representedHearing Hearing date: 8 May 2025
Approved JudgmentThis judgment was handed down remotely at 10.30am on 28 May 2025 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.
[1]This is a judgment on an application dated 18 June 2024 made by “Cheryl Plummer LP t/a Cheryl Plummer”. It seeks to set aside orders of 20 March 2024 and 17 April 2024. The application notice lists two cases, J10CL141/EN38/2024 (action “141”) and QB-2021-002156 (action “2156”).[2]There has been a long history of proceedings relating to a house at 54 Woolgrove Road, Hitchin, Herts, SG4 0AZ (“the property”).[3]The documents before me are incomplete but piecing things together as well as the record allows, it appears that action 2156 was brought in the name “Cheryl Plummer” (i.e. that of a natural person – referred to below as “CP”) against Stephen Flattery by a claim form dated 3 June 2021. Judgment in default was granted in favour of CP on 13 December 2021 for the sum of £139,000 odd.[4]It appears that there were also proceedings in respect of the property in the name “Cheryl Plummer LP” (“CPLP”). These included action 141 in the County Court. It seems that these proceedings were originally commenced in the High Court under number PT-2022-00216. Mr Feraud’s second witness statement (referred to below) states that this action was commenced by CPLP on 15 March 2022. He gives the impression that this was the first time CPLP had brought proceedings.[5]However, I note that on 25 January 2022 there was a Combined Request for a Writ of Control, Writ of Possession and Writ of Delivery in action 2156. This was in the name of CPLP rather than CP. It therefore appears that CPLP may have been used in action 2156 before any proceedings were issued by CPLP. No explanation has so far been given.[6]There was also a record of examination of Mr Flattery in action 2156 on 5 October 2023.[7]On 13 November 2023 a Combined Writ of Possession and Control was issued by the County Court at Central London in action 141. This was in favour of CPLP.[8]The evidence before me does not explain why there were two sets of proceedings against the same defendant in respect of the same property.[9]On 22 November 2023 I made a General Civil Restraint Order (“the GCRO”) against CP. That order was made in proceedings against parties other than the defendant, concerning a different property.[10]In my judgment of the same date ([2023] EWHC 3241 (Ch)) I made the following points. i) At para 28 I referred to an order of 22 May 2023 by Master Kaye in further proceedings between CPLP and Mr Flattery. In that order Master Kaye had stated that it appeared that Cheryl Plummer LP was connected to Leslie Gayle-Childs (“LGC”), and was therefore within an order under s. 42 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 affecting him (see further below). The connections included(i) that CPLP had accepted that it was a GC family foundation company and Master Kaye concluded that the “GC” in that name referred to LGC;(ii) according to the documents in the case, LGC was an employee of CPLP in 2022; and(iii) the other orders in the underlying proceedings referred to Tuscany Trust Holdings Trustees, which was also connected with LGC. I shall return to LGC and the s. 42 order in a moment. ii) In paras 29-30 of my judgment I said this:
“29. I was also referred by counsel for the applicant to a decision of HHJ Paul Matthews, given in the County Court at Bristol in the case of Smith v Marston Holdings Ltd & Anor [2022] EW Misc. 23 (CC). In that judgment, dated 6 October 2020, HHJ Matthews dealt with five sets of proceedings in the County Court, mostly brought in the name of a Mr David Smith. After a painstaking analysis the judge concluded that Mr Gayle-Childs was behind each of the allegations or proceedings, and that he was using Mr Smith's name, sometimes as a direct or agent of another entity, to carry on proceedings against third parties. HHJ Matthews explained in paragraph 92 the various ways in which he had conducted litigation in the past. 30. In the course of his judgment, HHJ Matthews listed a number of connections between Mr Smith and Mr Gayle-Childs, and various entities or addresses. He referred to a firm or entity called Nathan Paralegals, which had purported to instruct counsel acting for Mr Smith. Nathan Paralegals, as HHJ Matthews explained, is not a firm of solicitors or even registered paralegals. It appeared from the evidence possibly to have been a trading name of an offshore company called Paine Crow and Associates, or Paine Crow and Partners. HHJ Matthews also referred to various accommodation addresses used by those bringing the proceedings. … The judge also referred to other entities, including various entities with Tuscany in their name, such as Tuscany Trust Holdings and Tuscany Developments ….” iii) Para 32 of my judgment said: “In the circumstances I am entirely satisfied that there are clear connections between Ms Plummer and Mr Gayle-Childs in relation to the present proceedings. These points were raised in the evidence for this application and not contested by the respondent. Mr Gayle-Childs to be found by the courts to be a vexatious litigant, including in the proceedings that led to the section 42 order and in the judgment of HHJ Matthews. Moreover, the five sets of proceedings in the County Court in this case have the same hallmarks as the proceedings described by HHJ Matthews, including the use of accommodation addresses on claim forms and witness statements, (in breach of the CPR), purported representation by Nathan Paralegals (which has the appearance of being a legal representative but without there apparently being any regulated firm of that name) and connections with various other entities, including Tuscany Developments and DEZ Holdings.”
[11]As explained in those passages LGC is the subject of an order under s. 42 of the Senior Courts Act 1981. That order was made by the Divisional Court on 3 December 2020. The reasoning for the order is set out in a judgment at [2020] EWHC 3811 (QB).[12]The judgment of HHJ Paul Matthews in the Smith case explains in detail the way that LGC has used the names of various persons and entities to bring proceedings and applications.[13]As already mentioned, the application of 18 June 2024 seeks to set aside orders of 20 March 2024 and 17 April 2024.[14]By the order of 20 March 2024 Master Davison stayed execution of the earlier order for possession of the property.[15]The order of 17 April 2024 (sealed on 18 April 2024) was made by Master Sullivan in action 2156. The Master noted the existence of the GCRO (dated 22 November 2023), and referred to an application dated 20 December 2023 for the defendant to attend court for questioning and an application for a writ of control on 19 February 2024. She noted that CP was in breach of the order. She revoked the writ of control and an order of 12 March 2024. She also set aside a judgment of 19 January 2022. She referred the matter to me to decide whether to take further action. She gave CP the right to set the order aside. CP did not apply to do that.[16]In para 6 of her reasons the Master recorded that the claim appeared to arise out the same facts as action 141 in the County Court. She said that actions 2156 and 141 appeared to fall within the s. 42 order against LGC. She also noted that both actions related to a purported agreement between a BVI firm, Whiting Timmis and Partners LP (“WTP”) and a Tuscany Trust Holdings company. She noted that the latter company appeared to be connected with LGC.[17]She also recorded in para 8 of her reasons that the documents provided in action 141 included an assignment dated 3 February 2022 from Tuscany Trust Holdings to CPLP. She also noted the apparent connection between LGC and WTP. I shall return to the assignment in a moment.[18]Action 2156 was transferred to the Chancery Division by order of Lambert J dated 27 February 2025 (sealed on 3 March 2025).[19]By email of 31 October 2024 I gave directions concerning the application of 18 June 2024. The directions referred in terms to the order of Master Sullivan of 17 April 2024. I directed CPLP to serve a witness statement addressing(a) the details of the relationship if any between CP and CPLP;(b) a full procedural history of the various proceedings; and(c) the basis of the authorisation of any person authorised to act for CPLP, exhibiting a passport. There was then to be a hearing at which the court would need to address the question whether the proceedings in the name of CPLP were covered by the GCRO and/or the s. 42 order.[20]A witness statement was served on behalf of CPLP in the name of Thierry Feraud dated 9 December 2024. That witness statement stated that CPLP’s “current management” had no relationship with a natural person named CP. No further details were given of the relationships between CP and CPLP or how CPLP came to trade in the name “CP”. Nothing was said to explain why there appeared to be two sets of proceedings, one in the name of CP and the other in the name of CPLP, in respect of the same property and arising from similar facts.[21]Mr Feraud’s statement said that he had authority to act for CPLP as general counsel of Cheryl Plummer (International) LLC, a US LLC, which is said to own CPLP. No documents have been provided to establish this. The statement went on to make allegations of wrongdoing and fraud against Mr Flattery.[22]Mr Feraud’s witness statement referred to and exhibited a number of documents. These included an Assignment dated 3 February 2021 (“Document A”) between Tuscany Trust Holdings Trustees LP (“TTHT”) with its head office at 7 Bell Yard, London, WC2A 2JR and CPLP, with its head office at 167-169 Great Portland Street, Fifth Floor, London W1W 5PF. Both of these offices appear to be shared office spaces and therefore accommodation addresses. By Document A TTHT assigned all its interest and liabilities in causes of action pertaining to the property in consideration of a 49% “shareholding” of CPLP. The witness statement of Mr Feraud also referred to and exhibited an Agreement of Transfer dated 3 February 2021 between the same parties. TTHT warranted in this agreement that its head office in England was the Bell Yard Office. The heading of the agreement stated that its head office was in Tortola, BVI. The transfer under the agreement was a transfer of debts.[23]Companies House filings for TTHT show that its registered office is the Bell Yard address. Its original limited partners were the Ramis Fund LP and K B Trust company. The Ramis Fund was referred to in para 67 of the judgment of HHJ Matthews in Smith.[24]CPLP filed a further witness statement of Mr Feraud dated 28 March 2025. It made a number of allegations against Mr Flattery. It referred to and exhibited a number of documents. These included an Assignment dated 3 February 2022 (“Document B”) which is in substantially the same terms as Document A save for the date (being exactly a year later). The witness statement states in paragraph 12 that CPLP commenced proceedings on 15 March 2022 under no. PT-2022-00216 and that these became action 141.[25]The second statement of Mr Feraud does not explain the relationship between Documents A and B or how both can be authentic. He has now exhibited both documents and has signed a statement of truth in respect of each. Moreover Document A was accompanied by the Agreement of Transfer also dated 3 February 2021. However in his second statement Mr Feraud states that it was the result of a contract in February 2022 that CPLP became the legal owner of the property. He does not attempt to reconcile this account with his first statement.[26]I also note that the signatures on the two witness statements of Mr Feraud bear no resemblance to the signature on the copy passport he has exhibited.[27]The hearing of the application of 18 June 2024 was listed before me on 8 May 2025. Mr Flattery did not attend. Mr Tramboo appeared on behalf of CPLP. He explained that he had been instructed by an entity called “Clinton Hector LP” (“CHLP”). That is a UK registered LP. Its Companies House filings show that with effect from 3 May 2023 GC Family Foundation (“GCFF”) and Paine Crow and Partners LLP (“PCP”) were appointed as its general partners and that on 2 April 2025 PCP resigned as a general partner. The registered office address is 167-169 Great Portland Street, Fifth Floor, London W1W 5PF. That is the same registered address as CPLP’s. As already noted it is an accommodation address.[28]As noted above, Master Kaye recorded in her order of 22 May 2023 that CPLP accepted that GCFF was a GCF entity and she concluded that the “GC” in its name referred to LGC. That has not been contradicted in any evidence before me.[29]I also note that in Smith, HHJ Paul Matthews drew attention to a number of connections between PCP and LGC.[30]Companies House filings for CPLP show that on 18 September 2024 WTP, GCFF and PCP resigned as general partners and “Tuscany 1980 Trust” became a general partner. Hence there are close connections between CPLP and these entities, which themselves have been found in the earlier decisions referred to above to be connected with LGC.[31]Mr Tramboo explained to the court that he was directly instructed by CHLP on behalf of CPLP. The evidence before me set out above leads to the probable inference that CHLP, LGC and CPLP are closely connected entities.[32]Mr Tramboo attended the hearing alone. It emerged that Mr Tramboo knew nothing about(a) my directions order of October 2024,(b) Mr Feraud’s first statement or its exhibits,(c) the GCRO, or(d) the s. 42 order against LGC. This was notwithstanding that the application of 18 June 2024 referred on its face to the s. 42 order and the order of 17 April 2024 (which it sought to set aside). The 17 April 2024 order in turn referred to the s. 42 order and the GCRO.[33]Mr Tramboo was unable to explain why Mr Feraud had exhibited the two different assignments (Documents A and B). He was unable address the evidence about the various apparent connections between CPLP and entities associated with LGC. He was unable to explain why there were two sets of proceedings in respect of the same property based on substantially the same facts, one in the name of CP and the other in the name of CPLP (or indeed the similarity of their names). Nor was he able to explain the nature of the business of CHLP.[34]Mr Tramboo said that his instructions were confined to seeking a possession order. This response was inadequate as it was plain from my directions that the GCRO and s. 42 order would have to be addressed at the hearing. Mr Tramboo apologised for having such limited instructions or information. He realistically submitted that he was not in a position to advance any positive application for the relief sought and asked for the application to be adjourned.[35]I also heard from a police officer, DS Anna Luxon of the Hertfordshire Constabulary. She did not seek to make submissions about the merits of the application but explained that there were criminal proceedings on foot against LGC for fraud by false representation in relation to steps taken by various entities to seek to obtain control of the property. A criminal trial has been arranged for later this year in the Cambridge Crown Court.[36]I have considered whether simply to dismiss the application. I have however decided to adjourn CPLP’s application as requested by Mr Tramboo. This is partly because the court has an interest in seeking to determine whether its processes are being abused and whether the proceedings are within the scope of the GCRO and/or the s. 42 order. As a condition of the adjournment, I shall require CPLP to produce a witness statement with a statement of truth addressing the following areas: i) How Mr Feraud (or any other purportedly authorised person) has been authorised by CPLP, including by producing all documents showing his (or their) authority. ii) The filing of both Document A and Document B, and how Mr Feraud came to exhibit and refer to both documents (as well as the Agreement of Transfer) as authentic. iii) The apparent discrepancy between Mr Feraud’s signature on his passport and that on his statements. iv) The date on which CPLP contends that it obtained an interest in the property and the basis for that contention. v) Whether CPLP sought relief from a court in respect of the property before the date on which it obtained an interest in the property and, if so, on what basis it did so. vi) A full and comprehensive account of any connections between(i) LGC,(ii) TTHT, (ii) CPLP,(iii) CP,(iv) PCP,(v) CHLP,(vi) WTP and(vii) GCFF, from 2020 to date. vii) An explanation of the coincidence between the names CP and CPLP. viii) The various concerns raised by this judgment as to whether these proceedings are in substance being controlled by LGC or CP.[37]I will consider any such statement before deciding how to proceed with the application. As already mentioned I have decided to make this order partly as a condition of the adjournment and partly under the court’s inherent powers to protect its own processes. For the reasons given in this judgment I have serious concerns that the court’s processes are being abused by proceedings being brought by entities connected with or under the control of LGC.[38]A copy of this judgment will also be sent to the office of the Attorney-General as its contents concern the s. 42 order against LGC.