Case No. EWFC-75

I now wish to record the statements that have been filed on behalf of the wife. It had been anticipated that E would give evidence but I was told that she did not wish to do so. The statements of the witnesses who did not give evidence are hearsay. Although hearsay evidence is admissible in proceedings of this nature, the court has to recollect that the evidence has not been tested in cross examination and that the court has not had the benefit of seeing the witnesses. The court has a responsibility to ensure the overall fairness of the hearing. I think it important to recollect the provisions of section 4 of The Civil Evidence Act 1995 which states:1)In estimating the weight (if any) to be given to hearsay evidence in civil proceedings the court shall have regard to any circumstances from which any inference can reasonably be drawn as to the reliability or otherwise of the evidence.2)Regard may be had, in particular, to the following—(a)whether it would have been reasonable and practicable for the party by whom the evidence was adduced to have produced the maker of the original statement as a witness;(b)whether the original statement was made contemporaneously with the occurrence or existence of the matters stated;(c)whether the evidence involves multiple hearsay;(d)whether any person involved had any motive to conceal or misrepresent matters;(e)whether the original statement was an edited account, or was made in collaboration with another or for a particular purpose;(f)whether the circumstances in which the evidence is adduced as hearsay are such as to suggest an attempt to prevent proper evaluation of its weight.134.At C109 there is the statement from the parties’ daughter, E. She says that the husband confirmed that he is the owner of the New Chandni Restaurant and that he was married to the 7th Respondent; she does not produce any independent evidence about this and, in my opinion, this does not take her evidence further that being further, hearsay, support for the admitted position that the husband was the manager of the business. 135.E says that the two children are the children of the 7th respondent and the husband. She says that she has visited the property at 4 Morland Rd where her father stays with her stepmother and half siblings. Further she says that she has worked at the restaurant ‘which had clearly shown me that he is the owner of the restaurant’. The husband has responded to her statement at D2; he denies her contentions about Morland Rd and about his relationship with R7. He says that E has not worked at the restaurant and would have been underage, in any event. The absence of oral evidence from E makes an evaluation of her statement very difficult, as hearing from B in oral evidence showed. 136.I have no evidence that E was able to investigate the legal titles to any of the properties concerned or to have an in-depth understanding of the legal ownership of the company. Her ability to say that the husband and R7 were married could not be tested and there is no evidence to demonstrate the basis of her assertion; I suspect that it is materially influenced by the wife’s view about this. I see no reason to doubt her evidence, that is mirrored by B’s, that she has visited 4 Morland Rd and has seen the father staying there. 137.At C112 there is a statement by Mohammed Iqbal Miah who is the wife’s brother-in-law. He says that he can confirm that the husband is the owner of the New Chandni Indian Restaurant and that he has visited the restaurant many times. He says that he has been informed by others that the husband is ‘putting huge amounts of money into [another person’s] bank account to hide the restaurant.’ At D4 the husband says that, as far as he is aware, Mohammed Miah has never visited the restaurant. He says that the account about him putting money into another person’s bank account is ‘a complete lie’. At D18 there is a statement from a Syed Kalam denying that he told Mr Miah that the husband was putting huge amounts of money into his bank account; Mr Kalam says that Mr Miah went to prison for fraud in 2014 and that, after they fell out, Mr Miah has made false allegations against him to ‘get back at me.’ Mr Kalam says that he works with the husband at the Chandni Restaurant.138.Mr Miah came to give oral evidence. He is married to his first cousin, the wife’s sister. He was referred to D18 and said that it is true that he went to prison for fraud in 2014. His assertion that the husband is the owner of the current restaurant appeared to be based on his understanding about the ownership of the previous restaurant business that had been operated by the husband in partnership with others at 54 High Street. He did not have any detailed knowledge of the legal structure of the current business and the companies that have been created. The evidence about the husband putting money into another person’s account was not supported by documentation and was not reliable, in my opinion. I do not consider that his evidence took matters any further. 139.At C114 there is a statement by Ahmed Sayed who is an electrician and builder. I was told at the outset of the hearing that he has suffered a stroke and will not be giving evidence. He says that he has known the husband and wife for over a decade and has carried out work for them. He says the husband would hire him for jobs at the restaurant and would settle his bills and continues to do so. The husband says that Mr Sayed has not known him for over a decade, rather, it is the husband’s brother that he has known for time [D5]. He says that the only work that Mr Sayed did at the restaurant, as far as he knows, was in relation to a manhole, on the instruction of his brother. The husband says that he has never hired Mr Sayed to do work there and has not invited him to dinner there, either. I do not consider that the statement of Mr Sayed takes matters further. 140.At C116 there is a statement by a Monwara Miah who is the wife’s sister. She says that she can confirm that the husband is the owner of the restaurant. She says that during ‘the matrimonial proceedings, [the husband] attended my home and assured me that he would transfer the property 37 St Michaels Ave to [the wife]. The husband further stated that he would transfer the ownership of the restaurant to their children when they are at a suitable age.’ The husband denies her contentions in his statement at D3.141.Monwara Miah gave oral evidence. She speaks very little English and required the assistance of an interpreter. Her statement is in English. She said that her daughter or her sister, the wife, may have written my statement for her but she could not recall how the statement came to be written. Nothing of evidential value emanates from her statement or evidence, either. 142.At C118 there is a statement by a Shahida Nessa who is another of the wife’s sisters. She says that she can confirm that the husband is the owner of the restaurant and says that she has visited the restaurant on many occasions with the wife where the husband invited them for dinner and birthday parties. The husband’s denials in relation to this statement are at D4. In oral evidence Ms Nessa said that she knows that The New Chandni Restaurant is owned by the husband because she has visited it. She said that she had never heard of Bluebird Restaurant Ltd or Mr Haque. She said that she first knew of the husband’s ownership of this business because her brother-in-law, Shaju Miah, had been in partnership with the husband in relation to the previous business that had been run from 54 High Street, Burnham. I did not find her evidence helpful. 143.At C120 there is a statement by Andrea Aug. She says that she is a care worker and has assisted in the care of G. She says that she is ‘under the impression’ that the husband is the owner of the restaurant as he once invited her and her husband over for a meal and did not charge for it. The husband says: ‘because Mrs Aug and her husband were not presented with a bill, does not mean that I was the owner of the restaurant.’ She did not attend to give oral evidence and I do not consider that her statement took matters any further, either. 144.Overall, I found the statements that were filed on behalf of the wife were unhelpful and made assertions beyond the knowledge of the makers. There was an absence of differentiation between ownership and control of the restaurant.145.