Case No. EWFC-75

The husband gave extensive oral evidence. It included the following salient points:i)He accepted in evidence that he was the manager of the restaurant and also the chef. He referred to a conversation when he spoke to B about the restaurant. B says that the husband called himself the ‘boss’ of the business. The husband says that he told B that he was the manager; the difference between their evidence is unimportant as I have stated albeit that I think ‘boss’ is more likely. ii)He did not mention the Chandni Catering Ltd involvement. He said that the company that owns the business is Bluebird Restaurant. The involvement of Chandni Catering Ltd only emerged from the subsequent evidence of Mr Haque. That involvement only appeared within the documentation from the payslips of the husband which, from October 2021, have the name of Chandni Catering Ltd written in the top right corner [K350], in place of Bluebird Restaurant Ltd [K349]. Beyond that, the only other possible reference was in Mr Meethan’s opening document where he said in paragraph 7: ‘Counsel understands that there is currently a trial period for a sale to another company’iii)He said that he has no other sources of income besides the declared wages (i.e. the £1,417.99 – K456) that are paid to him from the restaurant. I do not accept that evidence for reasons that I have explained and explain further when looking at the business accounts below.iv)He said that Mr Haque expects him to repay the money that he has lent him. He maintained the fiction that this was a loan.v)In relation to the land in Bangladesh [A10], he said that this was the only property or capital asset that he had at the time of the purchase. He put something between £9-14,000 into the purchase from the sale of other land that he had there and which, he said, the wife did not like. He said that Sume Begum’s name was on the document of title in relation to the land because she was in Bangladesh at the time of the purchase and Ahmed Mosthaque was not; that explanation does not bear scrutiny because the husband was also in the UK at the time of the purchase and his name appears on the documents of title. I do not have a satisfactory explanation from the husband or Ms Begum as to why Ms Begum’s name appears in the documents. vi)He said that he has been to 4 Morland Rd but does not have any belongings there. He said that he has stayed there only a couple of times when his children were with him, because he did not have space for them in his quarters at 50-52 High St. I accept B’s evidence that the husband did have belongings at the house and slept there more than just a ‘couple of times’.vii)He said that B had been told to say what he did in his evidence and in his statement. He denied that B had ever worked for four days a week at the restaurant or been paid £200. I deal with this when considering B’s evidence. viii)Before he managed the restaurant at 50-52 High Street there was a restaurant next door where he was in partnership with one other. That previous restaurant (at 54 High St) closed in 2003-4 as business was not very good. I see no reason not to accept that evidence –if the business had been profitable, it would have continued. ix)The husband said that his brother, Enu put £19k towards the purchase of 4 Morland Rd; but he (the husband) did not put anything towards the purchase. x)He said that, when Beaconsfield Rd was bought, he was lent £20k by his brother, Enu and £20k by Ahmed Mosthaque. Then, when Ahmed wished to buy his own property, the husband borrowed a further £20,000 from Enu to pay off the debt that he owed to Ahmed Mosthaque with the result that the overall debt to Enu became £40,000. The precise workings of this arrangement do not matter for the purposes of this judgment; the key points are that the husband did not put any money towards the purchase of Morland Rd and that any debt to Enu is very soft, in my judgment. 108.