Case No. FD11D02580

117.Mr Glaser QC submits that, in terms of the burden of proof, it is for H to prove that his client is the beneficial owner of MP. He submits that he has produced no new evidence which could satisfy a court that this burden of proof has been discharged. Not only is his case on set-aside devoid of merit, in the circumstances of the litigation history of this case, he submits that it amounts to a clear abuse of the court’s process and should go no further.118.On behalf of W, Mr Glaser QC relies on the narrative rebuttal which his client has set out in her witness statement and the supporting documents which she has produced. She has consistently denied having a beneficial interest in MP and/or in any of its corporate manifestations. 119.In terms of documentation, W has now provided, or made available, to H and this court the following:-(i)a signed copy of the stock transfer form dated 23 June 2016 which shows the purchaser of her shares in B Ltd as MP (Asia) LLC and the full address in Singapore of its registered office (“the Singapore address”);(ii)a partially redacted bank statement showing receipt into her personal account on 30 June 2016 of a CHAPS payment with the reference “MP” in the sum of £189,540;(iii)payments out of her account numbered ….9780 as follows:-•12 July 2016 in the sum of £45,438 to Stewarts Law LLP14;•13 July 2016 in the sum of £30,000 to Stewarts Law LLP;•1 July 2016 in the sum of £50,000 to Mr C, her former fiancé;•4 July 2016 in the sum of £40,440 to Mr C;(iv) a printout of an online faster payment of £1,095 made on 23 June 2016 with the reference “HMRC BHM [redacted]/1095.00” which she contends is evidence of the stamp duty which she paid online in respect of the share transfer;(v)(with the permission of the board of B Ltd) a redacted copy of the Deed of Adherence dated 7 July 2016 which MP was required to sign evidencing its status as a party to B Ltd’s shareholders’ agreement. The significance of this document is that it records the address of MP as being Ocean Financial Centre, 10 Collyer Quay, Raffles Place, Singapore, 049315 (“the Singapore address”) and describes the company as the “Investor”;(vi)a redacted copy of the Global Reseller Agreement dated 16 May 2016 which is said to license MP’s use for commercial purposes of B Ltd’s intellectual property.120.Of central significance in terms of Mr Glaser QC’s abuse of process argument is the fact that the same issues upon which H now seeks to rely in support of his latest set-aside action were all known and ventilated to one extent or another in 2016 as the parties approached another heavily contested five-day hearing. The issue of whether the purchaser of his client’s shares in B Ltd existed as a bona fide corporate entity was one of the central issues raised in the context of the 2016 litigation. He took me to the skeleton argument which he had prepared on behalf of W in November 2016 when the parties were anticipating five days of contested litigation in court. Paragraph 12 of that document is framed in these clear terms:-“12.As is crystal clear from his s25 statement, the Husband challenges the bona fides of such sale [i.e. the sale of the shares in B Ltd to [MP]. However, in breach of the Order15, he:a.Failed to set this out in correspondence; andb.Failed to notify the court of his position.”121.Mr Yates’ Note for the 2016 hearing on behalf of H was quite clear in the extent of the challenge which was then being mounted in relation to W’s disclosure. Para 69 of his Note refers specifically to her “refusing to provide any credible evidence that she has sold her shares in [B Ltd]” and “having told H and this court that she was walking away from [B Ltd] it now turns out that she is not”.122.Further, in terms of valuation, Mr Glaser QC relies on the fact that Mr Yates’ Note on behalf of H for the 2016 hearing stated (para 74) that “[t]he current value of these [B Ltd] shares is not important to this disposal hearing”. Whilst this submission goes to the materiality of the representations made by W, it is clear that the position in relation to her resignation from B Ltd and the reality of her role with the company going forward were live issues for determination and thus the impact on share valuation had the matter proceeded.