Defendants 10, 11 and 12, USL, Represented by James Fownes

Marc Horn <>,James Fownes
Cc:declan lowy,‘Andrew Buchanan’,
5 Apr at 21:46
The Court Manager,
The High Court of Justice
Liverpool District Registry
35 Vernon Street
L2 2BX
5 April 2018
BY EMAIL AND POST (I am overseas at the moment so that may well take a while)
Please find here under my point by point response to Defendants 10, 11, 12 and 13 formal Acknowledgement of Service and Witness Statement.
Dear James,
Thank you for your acknowledgement of service and witness statement.
Section D you state you object to the use of Part 8 procedure due to “significantly factually contentious” and in Section E you provide evidence of these “inconsistencies”.
1 through 11 no contention. (Out of interest 4. what is a “hive up arrangement”?)
12, 13 and 14 in general I draw your attention to Senior Courts Act 1981, 49

“Concurrent administration of law and equity.


Subject to the provisions of this or any other Act, every court exercising jurisdiction in England or Wales in any civil cause or matter shall continue to administer law and equity on the basis that, wherever there is any conflict or variance between the rules of equity and the rules of the common law with reference to the same matter, the rules of equity shall prevail.”,

12. As trustees USL via subcontract or any other mechanism have liabilities to “investors” who are the beneficiaries to the AFS, and the actions of USL confirm they are aware of this as detailed in your witness statement 10.
Additionally at law there is a direct liability to each investor from the date of the termination of the MSA with completed leaseholders.
13. The rules of equity prevail and hence the “investor” is the beneficiary and not USL as you claim, nor Pinnacle Student Developments (Leeds) Ltd.
14. I am not the legal owner as the leases have not been completed for Austin Hall as you correctly state in 13, however I am the Beneficiary of the Trust Agreement being the AFS and the Rules of Equity prevail.
15. An Additional Director listed at Companies House is Nick Tellwright.
Only living people can act. A company can do nothing, and hence the people are liable for their actions. The Directors are the Trustees who hold personal liability should the company have insufficient capacity to make good harm caused by those who took the actions and again I refer you to the Senior Courts Act 1981, 49 (1).
16. The defendants are still the Trustees and hence see 15.
17. The part of the claim specific to USL is detailed in (and is additionally admitted in the witness statement filed with the acknowledgement of service) (D) Additional Trustees Resulting from the Sale of the Freehold, 
    6. Additionally USL (Defendants 10 , 11, 12 and 13) by admission confirmed on the 29 November 2017 (Annex 17) they had entered an agreement with Defendant 9 (a named Trustee in AFS Annex 5, Page 3, 1.36), thereby confirming their acceptance of Trustee position in my AFS.
    7. USL by admission confirmed they were also renting out Units in Austin Hall and provided the list in Annex 18.
    8. The Defendant under whose authority USL  are renting out the units intended for the Buyers can be established via a CPR 31.12 (1) Specific Disclosure request.

18. The requested remedy is releasing payment of all rental income in full as it forms part of the “assured rent” is stated in (E) The Loss (continued), 

    7. Austin Hall has not reached practical completion as detailed in (D) 4 and (D) 5  above, the leases have not been issued to the Austin Hall Buyers and the Austin Hall buyers have not received the benefit of the actions of USL renting out the units.
    iv) The Defendants give an undertaking to the Court that assured rent is paid from the date the Trustees leased the units as detailed  in Annex 18.
19. If any of the issues are still not clear please do not hesitate to contact myself.
In summary it appears the only “significantly factually contentious” items is who is the beneficiary to the rental income resulting from the misunderstanding between the legal teams of USL and Pinnacle Student Developments (Leeds) Ltd which I trust has now been cleared up by the Senior Courts Act 1981, 49  “Concurrent administration of law and equity. (1), which allows USL to immediately release the rental income in full to the investors who are the beneficiaries of the AFS.
Today’s problems are the result of yesterday’s thinking – Be the change you want to see!
On Tuesday, 3 April 2018, 18:48:08 GMT+7, James Fownes <> wrote:

Dear Sir

We act for Urban Student Life Limited and the current Directors (Declan Lowy, Andrew Buchanan and David Choules). You will have received our letter in this regard last month.

We have received court papers from you in relation to Austin Hall. Please find attached our formal Acknowledgment of Service and corresponding witness statement which have been filed at Court.

Can you please kindly acknowledge safe receipt.

Yours faithfully

Shakespeare Martineau LLP

James Fownes 
Associate Partner 

D 0121 214 0647 
M 07435 789 673 
F 0121 237 3011 

Main T 0121 214 0000 ext 1647 
Shakespeare Martineau
Shakespeare Martineau 
No 1 Colmore Square, Birmingham, B4 6AA 
DX721090 Birmingham 43


Please do not reply to or act upon any email you might receive purporting to advise you that our bank account details have changed. Please always speak to the lawyer acting for you to check any changes to payment arrangements. We will also require independent verification of changes to any bank account to which we are asked to send money.

Shakespeare Martineau is a business name of Shakespeare Martineau LLP (the “Firm”), a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales with number OC319029. We are a firm of solicitors qualified to practise in England and Wales and are authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (“SRA”) with number 442480. A list of members of the Firm is available for inspection at its registered office: No 1 Colmore Square, Birmingham, B4 6AA. Any reference to a ‘partner’ in relation to the Firm means a member of the LLP or an employee or consultant with equivalent standing and qualifications. This email and any communication (written or otherwise) is provided for and on behalf of the Firm and no contractual relationship of any nature will arise with, nor will any services be provided by, any individual member, employee and/or consultant of the Firm other than for and on behalf of the Firm. 

This email is CONFIDENTIAL (and may also be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure) and is intended solely for the person(s) to whom it is addressed. If you have received it in error please notify the sender immediately and delete the original message from your system. You must not retain, copy or disseminate it. We do not accept any liability for any loss or damage caused as a result of computer viruses and it is your responsibility to scan any attachments.

Acknowledgement of service and defence on technicalities….

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.