42. ( Para 21 ) A paragraph, simply beyond belief, inferring the bar on the legal process is in the gutter. In that one can accuse a female, who’s life’s focus has been to raise the applicants children, & their, children. Who’s also had to gift, a 400,000 euro property legacy, to her bodge-it, this will do, I’m a builder ex husband. The respondent has on top of, no pun intended, additionally providing the applicant with an exit from financial oblivion, via the endearment of the respondents sister.
43. The applicant’s done substantial works to the family home, but hasn’t attained the required papers to sell the property, which will be repossessed in 2025, as the capital will be outstanding. Being the situation the applicant has imposed on the respondent. Yet the concern of their advocate Layla Babadi, conveyed in para 18, is the respondent has not provided proof, of her unemployment & her Tax Credit. But Layla Babadi accepts, she knows her status. Can you imagine Layla’s frustration.
44. Layla Babadi, in the applicants statement, makes the same inference, on the respondent’s effort to sell the property, as done about her Tax Credit, thus Layla is complicit in fraud, via deception.
45. Fact; the family home has had, circa 14 viewings, & it’s on its 5th estate agent, (as demanded by the applicant), despite how bazaar that, and his other demands are. (To include sacking a friendly, helpful, low cost, estate agent with historic data. Replacing with, an expensive, with no historic data). Regardless, the respondent’s done her very best, to comply with the applicant’s demands.
46. The Portugal property, managed by the applicant, is not even up for sale, some 10 months after the consent order. Yet the applicant, has absolute control, of the sales direction. Yet here we are, on the demand of the applicant, via his advocate, to discuss in court, the respondent’s adherence, to a court consent order. Such being both audacious & arrogant.
47. This is a clear example, of court misuse. Ironically the evidence indicates, such is being funded by laundered money, (save the applicant producing their last 3 years accounts). Or indeed, any year in the last decade, or even the name of his accountant. I’ll repeat, this legal action, is being funded by laundered money, paid to a solicitor, a barrister and the court.
You, really couldn’t make it up, and I haven't..
