North Cyprus Property | Pauline’s Auction Award Facts

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

North Cyprus Property | Pauline’s Auction Award Facts

For the record the case Pauline Read mounted against Kulaksiz Construction, Abdurrahman Guney and Yuksel Yilmaz case number 2316/2008 is a matter of public record.

The case she tried to mount against the bank which was withdrawn when a High Court Judge said it could not succeed is case number 458/2009 and is a matter of public record.

The Appeal against Repossession Order awarded to the bank case number 1/2009 at the Supreme Court was withdrawn under duress after being told it had been thrown out by her then advocate and is a matter of public record.

Her complete file was given to her present advocate dealing with the Mandamus and Libel cases and is still in his possession as he is still dealing with the Mandamus and 5th Libel case, when they are finished he tells her he will no longer represent her. The file will then be returned to her.

It is sad that someone claiming to be a friend of her Advocate is revealing private and confidential information about her on-going Mandamus case on the internet and it is for this reason Ms Read has allowed me to write her account.  In an on-going case the only people who should be in possession of these facts are the advocate, the client and the court until the facts come out in court

An interim injunction was applied for and given on the 14.10.2008.  As is usual the judge gave it and then the other side were made and had the opportunity to appeal against it.

doc-1

 

As a result of the other side’s appeal, and during the process  in case 2316/2008, the advocate acting for the builders told the Judge in chambers that just one villa on the site covered by Kocan number 3881 would be sufficient security for an injunction for the case.   Ms Read was also in chambers and she told the judge she disagreed.  The judge wisely sent Ms Read to the site to check, this was a Friday and the judge said she would see them again in chambers after the visit to the site by Ms Read. It was arranged for Ms Read and her partner to meet with Orhan, the then customer liaison person for the builder at the site in Arapkoy. When they arrived, the villa which the  builders advocate had said was sufficient to cover the claim in Ms Read’s action was shown to her and even to her untrained eye did not look anywhere near the value of her claim, which was in the region of £160,000 at that time. As luck would have it there was a For Sale notice on the gate of this house. Orhan explained that the owner had died and the villa was part of his estate.  Ms Read has always been open about that and has written about it many times. This villa she was told was on plot 1. Orhan also showed her plot 2 which he said was also in the builder’s name and therefore available as part of the Injunction.

On leaving the site, Ms Read called into the Estate Agent’s office that were marketing the property on plot 1 and found it was on sale for £79,950 fully furnished.  Clearly there was not enough value in this property.

doc-2

This property has more history.  Donaghy and Beyler advertised a mass auction and both my then advocates and I were surprised to see this property as one of the lots.  They were advised by both of us that there was an injunction on this property and it was withdrawn.

Ms Read  showed the sales particulars to the advocate doing the Mandamus and he even remarked he might like to buy it.  Ms Read said it was probably too far out for him and he agreed. Ms Read tells me her partner was present during this conversation.

To give some idea of the plot on which this villa and the plot of land stands on, here is a copy of the site.

doc-3

Ms Read reported back to the judge on the Monday as arranged and the judge was shown the sales particulars.

On the 24th November 2008 if Ms Read is reading it  correctly, injunction on 3881 had another injunction document issued by yet a different judge.

doc-4

All these documents refer to 7/8 of the site but when the final Permanent Injunction was issued it still refers to 7/8 of Kocan 3881.  Ms  Read has always believed that it was only two villas and one plot of land.

During the case Ms Read’s then advocate found a flat in the name of Yuksel Yilmaz and an injunction was put on this, however this had to be removed when it was discovered it was a different Yuksel Yilmaz.

Ms Read’s Advocate then found a villa on Kocan 4551 also in Arapkoy which was believed to be the villa Abdurrahman Guney lived in.   An Injunction was also put on that.

The two Kocan numbers appear on the Permanent Injunction dated 08.04.2009 and strangely even on this the 7/8 of Kocan no. 3881 still appears.

doc-5

On the 6th November 2009 Ms Read won her Breach of Contract Action and naively thought that it was the end of her ordeal. Not so. On the 1.10.2010, as a result of a Tapu official being taken to the site by Ms Read and her partner, and his reporting back to the Judge, the fraction of 7459/215800 appeared and even then Ms Read did not realise it was a problem. As has been reported, her then advocate told her she was not allowed to chase the auction and subsequently sacked Ms Read as a client.

Ms Read did try to progress the case and met with little help from the Tapu. On one occasion it was suggested she engage a surveyor to identify whether there were properties on the enforcement order. Strange since one of their number had been to the site and reported to the judge during the enforcement hearing.

When she engaged the advocate who did the Mandamus case, he too tried to progress the auction and also met with no joy, even allegedly being told there would be no auction because of the K5 case. The advocate  suggested a Mandamus action would be the way forward because a government dept. was refusing to do its duty. After much discussion and consideration Ms Read agreed and the advocate prepared the case from the file he had been given (returned to Ms Read by her former Advocate).  As one would expect from a professional, the file was studied by the advocate, questions he asked answered truthfully and at no time did Ms Read (dope), I think the poster of that comment meant dupe. Certainly Ms Read never gave the advocate noxious, hallucinogenic or mind altering substances.

At all times the advocate acted in a diligent, professional and ethical manner and for anyone to suggest otherwise would be untrue.

Ms Read regrets that the client/advocate situation broke down over a personal issue but as the advocate has agreed to continue with the Mandamus and one other case in progress she is unhappy that this report is necessary.

She is sure that the advocate is angry at some of the coverage on the internet since it sends out a very negative message. Client confidentiality is a minimum requirement, whether that client is a former or existing client is irrelevant. Certainly any future client would be disturbed by it.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Comments are closed.