“Hold fire we are hoping to come and see Anup this PM I need Anup to call me asap.”
“Likely to be 10 min late […].” 5.32. At 14.30 Kajal Patel forwarded an email from Milan Patel to Jay Bhogaita asking how Jay Bhogaita would like her to respond. Jay Bhogaita sent an email from his iphone: “Hold on we are nearly at Ur office.” 5.33. The completion statement for the Thamesmere loan was signed by both Manoj Saluja and Jay Bhogaita on 9 August at the offices of the defendant. All four of the live witnesses I heard at trial gave evidence as to their recollection of events that afternoon. I deal with this evidence and make findings of fact below. 5.34. The Thamesmere Loan Agreement was dated 10 August and the Thamesmere loan monies of£742,000 was released from Vyman’s client account the same day. The Thamesmere charge was registered against Hillcroft Crescent on11 August 2017 . 5.35. The Gracechurch Loan Agreement was dated 10 August and loan monies of£1.6 million were released from Vyman client account to ALD Legal the same day. The Gracechurch charge was registered on20 September 2017 . Findings of Fact 5.36. There is a significant area of factual dispute concerning the events of 7 to9 August 2017 . 5.37. The key disputes are as follows: 5.37.1 Jay Bhogaita says that he had no knowledge that Shital Shah was being used as the independent solicitor; 5.37.2 Manoj Saluja accepts that he was copied into the initial emails concerning Shital Shah, but disputes that he was consulted about the decision to accept Shital Shah; 5.37.3 Both Manoj Saluja and Jay Bhogaita claim that they attended Vyman’s offices on9 August 2017 separately to sign the completion statements. They did not see either each other, or Anup Vyas. 5.38. The defendant disagrees with all these assertions. 5.38.1 Anup Vyas claims that he discussed the appointment of Shital Shah with both Jay Bhogaita and Manoj Saluja by telephone, and they each gave their approval. 5.38.2 Anup Vyas further claims that there was a meeting at Vyman’s offices on the afternoon of 9 August which was attended by both Manoj Saluja and Jay Bhogaita. At this meeting, all matters including the role of Shital Shah were discussed and the completion documents were signed. Witnesses 5.39. I summarise very briefly the relevant witness evidence. Jay Bhogaita 5.40. Jay Bhogaita gave a witness statement dated2 September 2025 . He makes it clear that he is an agent for Thamesmere, and was not authorised to sign any official documentation unless he had been provided with authority in writing by one of the directors. 5.41. He did not see the email exchanges between Kajal Patel and Milan Patel into which Manoj Saluja was copied on 7 August. He says: I was not informed of the fact, let alone the significance of Shital Shah being the advisor to Mr and Mrs Patel in relation to their consent being secured for the charge over the second property. 5.42. He continues: There are three points which I would wish to clarify in this respect. Firstly, at no stage was I informed that there was any risk to the transaction presented by Shital Shah acting as an independent advisor to the Patels, whether as alleged in the defence or otherwise. Secondly, had I been made aware of the existence and nature of the risk, I would not have considered it worth taking and I would have advised Thamesmere not to proceed with the transaction. In fact, I had made it clear to Vyman from the outset that “I would not take risks”, expecting Vyman, being Thamesmere’s representatives., to advise and protect Thamesmere from any such risks. Finally […] the limitation placed on my authority as Thamesmere’s agent, of which Vyman would have been aware, would not have permitted me to give instructions for the transaction to proceed had any risk been identified by Vyman. 5.43. He confirms that he has consulted his diary and he had an appointment in London on the afternoon on 9 August. He recalls that he had travelled from London to Leicester with his son. He says: Whilst I do not remember exactly why I visted Vymans’ office on 9 August or any of the details, it was my usual practice, when visiting London, to park my car in Vymans’ car park in Harrow and travel on the Underground service to central London. It is most likely that, having received Kajal’s email at 2.30pm, owing to the fact that we were near Harrow, en route to London, I decided to see her in person in order to understand the purport of her email. What I am certain about is that I did not attend the office with Manoj Saluja that day. 5.44. In cross examination he added that he could not recall whether he saw Kajal Patel that day or not. 5.45. He said he did not know what he had meant by “hold fire”
“The bank is entitled to proceed on the assumption that a solicitor advising the wife has done his job properly.”