the human-rights web site |
This web-site is dedicated to the memory of the niece of our founder; a fine young lady who was caused to take her own life because of her father's, and his clan's, cruel attitude to her needs. Read about the circumstances that lead to the tragic loss of that life. Consider that it was all because of GREED. Precisely what our legal system promotes through ILL legal services care of our legal experts and the modus operandi from within. ( access ......../summons.hml) SIX months before taking her own life that fine young lady proclaimed to our founder:- "I can't understand it uncle everyone thinks of bricks mortar and money NO ONE CARES ABOUT PEOPLE". |
The CASE AS ISSUED OUT OF COURT - is published on the human-rights web-site in FULL. All PARTICULARS have been PLEADED, in the first instance. No suppression of the evidence as the manipulators of the court systems engage in, solely for theatrical presentations and productions.
PART 1 - Background of case
THE EDMONTON COUNTY COURT
Case Number ..ED706523...
Between
FIRST PLAINTIFF MR. ANDREW YIANNIDES
(suing for himself and as agent for the Second Plaintiff)
SECOND PLAINTIFF MRS. DESPINA ENGLEZAKIS
(suing for herself and as Principal for the First Plaintiff)
and
FIRST DEFENDANT MR. SOTIRIOS N ENGLEZAKIS
SECOND DEFENDANT MRS. ELENI P MICHAEL
THIRD DEFENDANT MR. A GENT
(sued as an individual and as a Public Servant)
________________________________
PARTICULARS OF CLAIM
_________________________________
BACKGROUND - "Disclosure of background proper" C.o.A ruling
Engagement / Marriage
1. Miss Despina K Joannidou, hereinafter referred to as the Second Plaintiff, was introduced to Mr. Sotirios N Englezakis,hereinafter referred to as the First Defendant, in the Summer of 1966. At about the same time a number of other suitors had been introduced to the Second Plaintiff in the normal course of events as was the practice within the Greek Cypriot community living in the United Kingdom at the time. The Second Plaintiff eventually decided to get engaged to the First Defendant, who among the suitors was one of the few to seek a meeting with the Second Defendant in a social environment in order to get to know of each other. The First Defendant was a barber and the Second Plaintiff was herself a hairdresser; there was therefore the additional matter of a common professional background. The Second Plaintiff and the First Defendant were engaged in early 1967 and married on 15 October 1967. The week leading up to the wedding, the eldest brother of the Second Plaintiff, Mr. Andrew Yiannides, hereinafter referred to as the First Plaintiff, invited the Second Plaintiff (his sister) and her husband to be, the First Defendant, to the maternal home of the Plaintiffs to hand over to them a sum of money in excess of £ 700 he had borrowed over the previous four years from the Second Plaintiff (his sister) who had undertaken to organise and meet the cost of the wedding of her own. The First Defendant grubbed the money without even affording the Second Plaintiff any chance to count and or check it herself. At the time the First Plaintiff told the First Defendant that he should look after his younger sister and that he was marrying a heart of gold who should never be given any cause to complain to anyone and that if she ever did complain to the First Plaintiff about anything wrong in the home she was setting up with the First Defendant, then the First Defendant would be dealing with the First Plaintiff.Absolute Financial control of JOINT ASSETS AND FUNDS by First Defendant
2. After their marriage the couple went to live in a property, at Newbury Park, Essex, which the First Defendant acquired not long before their engagement. The property, hereinafter referred to as the Matrimonial Home was purchased through a secured mortgage which the First Defendant obtained from the National Westminster Bank plc. Following the aforementioned wedding the First Defendant invited the Second Plaintiff to use the moneys collected (pinned to the wedded couple in the course of the traditional newlyweds dance, at the wedding reception) to pay off part of the mortgage on the Matrimonial Home. Thereafter regular repayments were made by the couple through the couples joint funds and earnings; also with lump sum payments from funds such as were secured from other parties who had received financial assistance from the Second Plaintiff prior to her engagement/marriage to the First Defendant. The Second Defendant carried on working and managing her own hairdressing salon in Hornsey North London while the First Defendant worked at and managed his barber shop at Seven Kings, Essex. The First Defendant soon after his wedding to the Second Plaintiff took control of the finances of the Second Plaintiff and went as far as to close the Second Plaintiffs business and other accounts; the First Defendant invited the Second Plaintiff to join with him in opening a joint account at the bank where he held his own accounts; the arrangement with the bank was that either party could sign for and or deal with the funds banked in the account. From the onset, however, the First Defendant would move such funds as were banked in the joint account to other bank accounts without any reference to the Second Plaintiff establishing and maintaining full control of all the finances and earnings of the Second Plaintiff. These matters were treated as private by the Second Plaintiff who never raised issue and or mentioned to anyone her frustrations at not being able to handle even her own earnings from her own business; she regularly handed over to the First Defendant the weekly takings with all slips and records as were faithfully kept from the time the Second Plaintiff started trading in 1959. It was not long before the aforesaid pattern of complete domination was set by the First Defendant.
First child 1968
3. On 7 July 1968. the Second Plaintiff gave birth to her first child the girl Eleni , hereinafter referred to as the First Born child. The Second Plaintiff never stopped work throughout the pregnancy and returned to work within days of the delivery. Every morning the Second Plaintiff would take the infant to her mothers residence at Wood Green, North London, close to her hairdressing salon, and collect it every night on her way home where she carried on her maternal and housewife duties faithfully.
Siblings arrive
4. In 1970 the First Defendant brought to the United Kingdom two of his siblings; his sister Theonitsa who soon exhibited signs of a mental disorder and was removed from the private college where she and her younger brother Haris had been placed by the First Defendant upon arrival in the United Kingdom. Theonitsas condition necessitated hospitalisation which lasted some three months before she was allowed to return to the Matrimonial Home to be with the rest of the extended family. Thousands of pounds were spent by the First Defendant on the schooling needs of his brother and sister and on private medical care for both, inclusive of expensive surgery for young Haris.
Second child
5. On 14 January 1971 the Second Plaintiff gave birth to another girl, Rita, hereinafter referred to as the Second Born child. From the onset and following the arrival of the First Born child the First Defendant showed and took no interest in the well being and or the needs of the children; such matters were left to the working mother, the housewife and the funds provider; she alone and or with help from friends and or relatives, dealt with every problem. A pattern of indifference and domination by the First Defendant was set from the onset and was but the established routine in the Matrimonial Home, the Englezakis household; at all material times the First Defendant exhibited complete and utter indifference to the needs of all others in the household he controlled and dominated as absolute patriarch allowing no one any rights to question him let alone complain about anything, inclusive of his right to intercept and read every other person's mail which invariably he would not hand over to the intended party. The Second Plaintiff found herself helpless but endured the domination and indifference for the sake of the young children; she did her best to cause the First Defendant to change some of his ways; such as his habit of betting regularly large amounts of money on horse racing. One area where the Second Plaintiff had some success was the First Defendants gambling at regular gatherings with a circle of friends of his who were also so inclined; after the First Defendant set up his own regular meetings / gatherings, in the flat above his barber shop, for the purposes of the group, the Second Plaintiff did her best to make such meetings pleasant and as hospitable as could be by providing for the benefit of the group food, drinks and other delicacies they all enjoyed, because of two reasons:- In the first instance it gave her a chance to use some of her own earnings herself by calling at the continental delicatessens in North London close to her salon; in the process the Second Plaintiff would purchase such other household requisites which she felt were essential and not as determined by the First Defendant. In the second instance the Second Plaintiff would know of the whereabouts of the First Defendant. It was not long before the First Defendant exhibited his mean streak, when it came to spending money for any other but himself, which matter members of the group noted and spoke of between themselves and to the Second Plaintiff recently. The First Defendant in hosting the meetings anticipated and intended to reduce his own outgoings. It was not long before the First Defendant recognised that the gatherings were not in conformity with his character of being mean with his money; and this because occasionally those of the group who had gambled their money away would ask of the host, to loan them some of the moneys he had raised through the pot; such moneys more often than not were not repaid and on top of that there were the entertaining / hospitality expenses which the Second Plaintiff knew of and was incurring from her own earnings.
School for First child and First Defendant indifferent to needs
6. In 1972 when the First Born child was to start Junior school the Second Plaintiff told the First Defendant that she wanted the girl to attend a Convent School; she proposed providing for the school fees out of the takings from her own business. She made it clear to the First Defendant that she was working for a better future for her children and their education was her prime concern. The Second Plaintiff relied on a close friend, Jenny, to assist in enrolling the First Born child at the Convent School at Gidea Park; Jenny would take to and collect the child from the school to return it home where the brother of the First Defendant looked after the children. The Second Born child started junior school in 1976 and she joined her sister at the Convent School. All school fees were met by the Second Plaintiff as she had stipulated and as had been agreed with the First Defendant. The First Defendant could not possibly argue against the Second Plaintiff's decision; he had and was spending thousands on his sister and brother and in the circumstances the First Defendant could not argue because he was using the funds under his control within knowledge of the children born of the marriage.
68 Rathcoole Gardens - purchase First Defendant intervenes last minute
7. In 1973 the Second Plaintiff was informed by clients that a property in multiple rented occupation / accommodation was to be sold in the vicinity of her salon. She recognised it was to be sold at an advantageous price; she entered into negotiations and joined forces with a cousin who wished to buy a place of her own. The First Defendant was informed of the negotiations and that the Second Plaintiffs purpose was to secure additional income in due course to assist in meeting the future educational needs of the girls. The First Defendant did not want to hear of the plan but when he recognised the Second Plaintiff intended to proceed to exchange of contracts and that she would cease handing over to him her income from her own business, at the last minute, he changed his mind and asked to be the second party to the contract thereby replacing the Second Plaintiffs cousin as joint owner, an act that embittered the relationship between the two cousins for a short time. Thereafter the First Defendant took control of the management of the rented property which he did in his established manner with the Second Plaintiff being denied access to any funds such as were even left over from her own business takings after meeting the Convent School fees for the girls, a mere £ 200 per term inclusive of meals for both girls; a low outlay when compared to what others were paying for the education of their childrens education at the time.
Secondary High School - First child - First Defendant Unconcerned and Indifferent
8. In the course of the same year, 1973, the Second Plaintiff considered the possibility of exercising her rights to acquire the freehold of her own business premises; she told the First Defendant that as the children ware growing up she felt that she needed to make additional arrangements on her own through which she could provide for the girls future schooling needs; somehow she was hoping to gain some independence and freedom because of the meanness of the First Defendant. She told the First Defendant that she considered the proposed purchase an additional asset and that it would be of increasing value to the family as time went by. In essence the Second Plaintiff had determined she needed to have some freedom to make her own choices for the children born of the marriage because she was not happy with the indifference the First Defendant had been exhibiting to the needs of all others in the household he controlled through sheer disregard, utter apathy and unconcern to any other. The First Plaintiff experienced and noted the First Defendants indifference, unconcern and apathy to the educational needs of the children when the Second Plaintiff had no choice but to seek assistance at the time when the First Born child was due to go to Secondary / High School; the First Born child was exceptionally bright and qualified for a good grammar school education; it was suggested the First Born child should attend a school in the city of London; this entailed travel on the underground to attend the suggested all girl private school; the idea was first and foremost rejected by the First Defendant because of the fees the family would be paying; the girl herself feared travelling on the underground on her own. The Second Plaintiff called in the First Plaintiff and relied upon him to assist in the search for an appropriate alternative school. A place was secured at a non fee paying all girl Convent school , at Upminster in Essex; there arose problems such as travelling out of the Local borough catchment area; also the costs arising through borough exchanges. Dealing with the familys Local Authority was a time consuming affair; The First Plaintiff through extensive presentations and argument resting on rights prescribed in the European Convention on Human Rights secured, eventually, the desired consent from the Local Authority. Throughout the First Defendant remained as indifferent and unconcerned as could be; he never even enquired as to what the position was at any given point in time, he showed no interest, expressed no desire to be informed and the First Plaintiff was thus afforded the opportunity to note and observe the complete lack of interest by the First Defendant in the childrens future. The issues noted by the First Plaintiff were not raised with the Second Plaintiff because such matters he considered to be strictly between the Second Plaintiffs matrimonial home and family members. Throughout the First Defendant stubbornly refused to accept any of the arguments the Second Plaintiff advanced in support of her desire to provide the children a very good education. The First Defendants crude and callous torment of the children arose out of and was attached to his mean and miserly ways which was manifest in everything that concerned anyone else but his own needs; he would often spent hundreds of pounds in having made to measure bespoke tailored suits for himself while he never concerned himself with the clothing needs of the children and or the needs of the Second Plaintiff. The First Defendants mean and miserly ways were never referred to the First Plaintiff who himself was never afforded any opportunity to observe such matters because the First Defendant never socialised within his own household and home such as the Second Plaintiff maintained. There was only one occasion and that was at the time when the Second Plaintiff had undergone a mastectomy operation in 1984 (refer to paragraph 15 below)
178 - South Africa Visit - Second Plaintiff disinterested OTHER PRIORITIES
9. At about the same time as the Second Plaintiff expressed the wish to purchase the freehold to the hairdressing salon property, in 1973, the First Defendant also announced that he wished to take the family to South Africa in order to visit his brothers and sisters there. The Second Plaintiff told the First Defendant that she would rather use such funds, as would be spent on the trip he was proposing, to acquire the freehold property as she had decided. The First Defendant did not wish to hear of the proposition and adamantly pursued his plan to take the family to South Africa. The First Defendant arranged the trip for Christmas 1973 - New Year 1974. In the course of the month long stay in South Africa the Second Plaintiff had plenty of opportunities to see and live at close quarters with the rest of the paternal family of the First Defendant. The Second Plaintiff found out for herself that the treatment of the black Africans by the Europeans was worse than made public in the United Kingdom; she even experienced the shooting of a young black African boy by one of the brothers of the First Defendant who would regularly boast of his paternal familys prowess and attitude in such matters of violence. The First Defendants brothers and sisters begun to exalt the virtues of their life in South Africa, and persuaded him that even though the South African Government would not grant immigration rights to non educated persons they would consider immigrants who had funds to invest on arrival in the country. The Second Plaintiff found the idea of life in South Africa such as she had observed and experienced unacceptable to her and in contravention of her principles; she hailed from a city and not from a remote village in Cyprus like the First Defendant; she found the atmosphere and the political climate not conducive to her plans for either an environment for her young children or the kind of upbringing she wished for them. She informed the First Defendant there was no way she would consider living there. Upon the return of the family to the United Kingdom the First Defendant persisted that the family should emigrate to South Africa; he even took an interest in the acquisition of the freehold of the Leasehold premises which the Second Plaintiff earlier wished to proceed to as her right under the terms of the Lease she had negotiated many years earlier; his intention being to sell at a profit because of the property market at the time. Negotiations were started with the heirs of the freeholder and at about the time of the exchange of contracts the First Defendant attempted to secure registration of the freehold in his sole name; the solicitors informed him that it was out of the question as the Leasehold and rights were but for the Second Plaintiff to exercise; the solicitors apparently did make it clear to the First Defendant that there was no way he could proceed as he wished without the consent of the Second Plaintiff who was neither consulted nor informed of the attempts, of which the Second Plaintiff found out many years later as hereafter stated. The First Defendant did make all necessary contacts at South Africa House in London in his efforts and attempts to take the family to live there. The Second Plaintiff after falling pregnant told the First Defendant there was no way she was going to emigrate there and or bring up her children in the environment she had experienced; the third child, the son Neophytos, hereinafter referred to as the Third Born child, was born on 7 September 1975.
First Plaintiff loan - wedding in Cyprus - First Defendant fabricates malicious lies thereafter
10. In 1976 the First Defendant was in Cyprus where the wedding of the First Plaintiff took place. Shortly before that event it was common knowledge in the family circle that the First Plaintiff had just suffered a serious set back in his businesses because of a long drawn out litigation case at the High Court. In the course of the said litigation there arose issues of forgeries as were indulged in, procured, adduced and freely used by solicitors; these were indifferently and recklessly entertained and acquiesced by court officials and authorities; the forgeries were referred to the Police, to members of Parliament and to the Lord Chancellors office; these included Forgeries on Court documents such as Orders and Notices of Appeal; evidently it was the in thing and the acceptable practice at the time. Because of those events the First Plaintiff borrowed £ 700 from the First Defendant prior to the wedding.
Kitchen range - First Defendant Likes Receiving - dislikes parting with money
11. In 1978 the Second Plaintiff called upon the First Plaintiff to advise, help and assist in the matter of the selection and the negotiations pertaining to the installation of a new kitchen range and units at her matrimonial home after extensive renovations and extensions that the Defendant had embarked upon for the umpteenth time; on each and every occasion the building works being executed during the winter months which secured lower bids from builders and saved on heating bills because there was no need for such as the house was for ever open to the elements. The First Plaintiff was told that the First Defendant had invited and seen three specialist firms who had submitted their plans for the new kitchen; on each and every occasion the First Defendant simply let things be and had now called in a fourth company who were to submit their plans which the Second Plaintiff wished to discuss with the representative in the presence of the First Defendant and the First Plaintiff. On the relevant day and in the course of the evenings meeting it appeared to the First Plaintiff that the First Defendant was ones again dragging his feet and unwilling to commit himself in any way. The representative was told that because of the submissions from other firms/companies the Second Plaintiff wished to consider the different designs over the next few days before making a choice. The representative gone the First Plaintiff enquired of the First Defendant if there existed any financial problems; this he did because he was aware of the private schooling and the building works and why during the winter months (lower bids only; it was not until 1995, as herein below stated, when the Second Plaintiff open her heart and begun speaking to the First Plaintiff of the miser First Defendant and the heating costs policy). Because the First Defendants reply was affirmative the First Plaintiff suggested that all three, the First Defendant and the two Plaintiffs should go to the Ideal Home Exhibition on the last day and secure, at a low price, one of the exhibits at the close of the exhibition as Junior the brother of the Plaintiffs had done some years earlier. On the relevant date only the two Plaintiffs went to the exhibition because the First Defendant made himself scarce for the occasion. At the exhibition the First Plaintiff made contact with a number of companies and as a qualified designer secured an agreement with Hygena to supply him with parts through one of their agents in Kent at wholesale prices in order to design and install a new kitchen as would be approved by the Second Plaintiff. The First Defendant was thus caused to meet the Second Plaintiff's needs for a kitchen range proper and he had no choice but to pay for the cost of materials which amounted to £ 1700. only; the designed and installed kitchen was comprised of more units and included exclusive and unique sections not even attempted and or provided for in the other four submitted designs. The works were executed by the First Plaintiff with assistance from a cousin.
Second Plaintiff - Accident - Second Plaintiff's suffering ignored
12. In November 1979 the Second Plaintiff was involved in a car accident; the car the Second Plaintiff was driving was hit in the rear by a lorry travelling at speed on the North Circular; the impact causing a whiplash of her upper neck/head and a simultaneous forward thrust and impact of her chest on the steering wheel; the injuries she sustained caused severe chest and neck damage from which the Second Plaintiff suffered for many years.
First Defendant's brother dies - The planting and promotion of The Company idea
13. In late 1982 Nicos, the younger brother of the First Defendant, died in South Africa following a car accident. The First Defendant came back from South Africa after the funeral with many a story as to the position of the deceased and the esteem that other farm and land owners had for him because of his work in developing the breed of Braman, a cattle-cum-buffalo. Later the Second Plaintiff heard that the widow of the deceased was left with almost nothing and that the other brothers of the deceased had declared themselves to have been partners with him in his business; the deceased appearing to have disregarded and or had failed to make proper and or adequate provisions for his wife (in as much the same manner as the First Defendant had established from inception of his marriage and was doing to the Second Plaintiff). When the Second Plaintiff became aware of the similarities in her marriage she begun to ask questions of the First Defendant; he carried on disregarding her every question never offering any answers to ease her worries and anxieties; she was most concerned about her position and that of her children. Other issues that arose following the demise of the First Defendant's younger brother Nicos were most disconcerting to the Second Plaintiff because these indicated complete and utter disregard to the rights of the widow to make her own choices and of her right to know; precisely as the Second Plaintiff had been and was being treated by the First Defendant from inception of the marriage and throughout.
178 salon Leased - Second Plaintiff works at Seven Kings NO WAGES for work done
14. In 1983 the First Defendant made changes at his barber shop; a section at the rear was turned into a ladies hairdressing salon, the Second Plaintiffs business and premises were Leased to Mr. and Mrs. Michael, Mrs. Eleni Michael, hereinafter referred to as the Second Defendant managing and running the business she took over from the Second Plaintiff. In the course of the years following the accident the family doctor initially looked upon the pains and slight lumps in the breast region as bruising, later treated as mastitis because, as he put it to her, she ceased breast feeding too soon. After the Second Plaintiff begun to work at the unisex salon in Seven Kings the First Defendant exercised full domination and absolute control and authority over the Second Plaintiff. The Second Plaintiff was never given any money and at no time was she in any position to ask for and or receive any; the First Defendant would often ask of the Second Plaintiff, in the presence of staff if she had taken any moneys from the float he used to take back to the cash register every morning from home; in private the Second Plaintiff raised objections, because she regarded the suggestions as insults and the First Defendant would justify his demands as simple indications to the staff not to tamper with the till/cash register, hence his questions in front of the staff and others. The fact was that the First Defendant would never give pocket moneys to the children and the Third Born child quite often at night would help himself to such funds as he needed from the bag containing the float; that issue was raised time after time by the Second Plaintiff with the First Defendant who had from the onset arranged for even the Family Allowances to be paid to him and not to the mother of the children. The First Defendant indignantly refused to change his ways and to consider that what he was doing was harmful to all and above all to the children. The First Defendants meanness and miserly ways when it came to parting with moneys to the children was witnessed by the younger brother of the Second Plaintiff some years earlier. On a particular Sunday afternoon in 1984 after the Second Defendant had undergone the mastectomy operation, the younger brother of the Second Plaintiff was visiting the family. Throughout the evening and for some four hours the Second Born child was asking the First Defendant to give her the moneys she needed for her dinners at school; the First Defendant simply ignored her every request and plea as if he was not there; complete utter indifference and stubborn torment and cruelty eventually turned to heavy smacking. In her endeavours to get some attention for her plight, because it was getting late and she needed to go to bed, she stood in front of the television set, to which the First Defendants attention had been glued throughout the torment of the girl; when she interfered and intercepted his line of vision the First Defendant simply got up and smacked her so violently that she went hurtling across the room; it was only the efforts and interception of the Plaintiffs younger brother that the beating did not get worse. The Second Plaintiff, after the guest had left, enquired of the First Defendant to state what it was he had attempted to prove by his ill treatment of the girl and in particular the torment he had put her through in the long drawn silence and neglect to respond to her pleadings; the First Defendant contained himself to assert that he was teaching the girl the value of money; the Second Plaintiff then enquired if by being so mean he was seeking to drive the girl to stealing and or to selling her body in order to feed herself; the First Defendant just shrugged off the remark as of no consequence. Shopping and other household requisites were purchased by the Second Defendant as, how, when and particularly what he alone chose, as always. Whenever the Second Plaintiff, or any of the children, escorted the First Defendant in a shopping trip such other person was only there to push the trolley while the First Defendant selected items of his choice never asking anyone if they needed anything for themselves.
Second Plaintiff - Mastectomy Operation - FIRST Defendant Crude-mean and Indifferent
15. By 1984 the Second Plaintiff begun to suffer extreme pains in her chest and thorax with restricted movements of her arms. There had been a gradual worsening of the situation as and from the date of an accident. After years of neglect and indifference following the car accident (as stated under paragraph 12). In the course of a visit to the Family Planning clinic she raised the issue of the increasing pains; the staff there made an appointment for her at King George the local Hospital; it lead to the need for exploratory operation culminating in a mastectomy operation. On the day of the operation, the First Defendant drove down the main road, dropped her off and let her walk to the Hospital; in the evening, following the operation proper, he arrived at the hospital without a card or flowers for the patient; to add to the mental anguish and the injured feelings he had thus inflicted on the devastated Second Plaintiff through his meanness and insensitivity he was unashamedly crude and rude to her; in the presence of other visitors he was telling her off for crying. The First Plaintiff who could not stand that treatment of the devastated patient, simply walked away; he considered the First Defendant's behaviour vulgar and despicably inhumane; the wife of the First Plaintiff, however, did not contain herself particularly after the First Defendant admired the bunch of flowers an old boy had bought for his 70 year old wife (another patient across the room); the First Plaintiff's wife simply enquired of the First Defendant, "Where are the flowers for your wife? ". The Second Plaintiff never raised the issue of the behaviour of the First Defendant on the day and never complained to anyone throughout the years although she tried very hard to cause the First Defendant to consider others and their feelings which he persistently offended and ignored.
First Defendant's systematic Offensive allegations intended to damage Plaintiffs
16. Over the years the First Defendant afforded the First Plaintiff many an opportunity to take issue with him because of offensive assertions and allegations indulged into by the First Defendant at the expense of the First Plaintiff; such maligned assertions being used by others never in the presence of the First Plaintiff each and every other simply repeating orally never confirming in writing as demanded of them, thereby propagating and promoting falsehoods at will. The First Plaintiff repeatedly asked of the promoters either to ask of the First Defendant to repeat the allegations and assertions amounting to malicious gossip in the presence of the First Plaintiff and other witnesses and or to write of the allegations to the First Plaintiff; because all defaulted to act as requested the First Plaintiff thought it best not to interfere in the marriage and home of the Second Plaintiff. Over the years the First Defendant would often assert and declare false allegations about the First Plaintiff to third parties; never directly to the First Plaintiff. The First Plaintiff was for ever being offended by the First Defendant with assistance from others who ensured through their defaults to act as requested of them by the First Plaintiff; in the circumstances the First Plaintiff was never put in a position to act and the orchestrated falsehoods and malicious activities in the background carried on for years. The First Defendant would often extend his offensive allegations and assertions to such other family members simply to cause friction and arguments in the maternal family of the Plaintiffs.
EVENTS LEADING TO CAUSES OF ACTION
OFFENDING FIRST PLAINTIFF always in his absence never directly FOR YEARS
17. The First Defendant carried on spreading and repeating malicious and wilful allegations for years. The First Plaintiff became aware of such about his person in 1984; apparently the First Defendant some years earlier had taken his family' to Italy on the occasion of the marriage of his cousin there; and in the presence of many members from his paternal family, in as usual and typical a manner as ever the First Defendant begun to promote insults about every member of his wife's (the Second Plaintiff) maternal family. In the course of the First Defendant's exhibition, he promoted such false allegations and assertions about the First Plaintiff as he felt free to do; evidently he alleged that the First Plaintiff was indebted to him (the First Defendant) in the alleged sum of £ 2000; the First Plaintiff was told of the allegations a year later; however such were used by Junior on many an occasion in efforts by Junior to generate and create the impression that the First Plaintiff was an alleged embarrassment to him and to the paternal family of the Plaintiffs. In 1987 the First Plaintiff was negotiating the purchase of the house he had been renting for his own family's needs; the First Plaintiff called upon the First Defendant in order to put an end to the malicious lies and allegations being brandished about by the First Defendant and used by such other maligned individuals as suited their intended purposes. It was common knowledge that one and all in the maternal family of the Plaintiffs had been expressing 'their views' whereby all were asserting the First Plaintiff was foolish and stupid; and such opinions, because the wife of the First Plaintiff was at home looking after her two children and the First Plaintiff was working alone to provide for his family's needs. Whenever such gossip was repeated and or raised by any other the First Plaintiff simply remarked that the maligned Joannides off springs were never called upon to provide either for his 'lazy' wife and or the children born of the woman he married, unlike the parasitic fourth born son in the Joannides family who had secured assistance and loans from none other than the object of their malice; all knew of and that son and his wife's parasitic existence for years and their provider, none other than the object of the malicious gossip never asserted and or alleged to anyone the true facts just as he had never spoken to anyone and or spoke of the truths that caused him to denounce the fraudster of a father and to change his surname to Yiannides. Because he was buying the aforesaid house the First Plaintiff did not wish for anyone to assert and or allege that the First Plaintiff provided a freehold house, to be jointly owned with the 'lazy wife' while the First Plaintiff was allegedly indebted to the maligned, malicious and mean First Defendant. The First Plaintiff, therefore, called upon the First Defendant prior to completing the necessary mortgage application; he wished to know of the allegations, the foundation of the indebtedness to the First Defendant as the First Defendant had been spreading around. The First Plaintiff was specific and succinct; he told the First Defendant in the presence of the Second Born child:- "I have agreed to buy the house I have been renting for years and I am in the process of applying for a mortgage; because of the gossip and the rumours in the family circles, and elsewhere where these have spread, I need to ensure that no one accuses me of housing my 'lazy wife' at any other's expense; it came to my attention that you alleged, at the time of your cousin's wedding in Italy, that I was owing you £ 2000 then. I suppose your assertions were based on the money I borrowed in 1976 and that somehow you proceeded to add interest; if that be the case kindly inform me of the rate of interest you added then and tell me what you think I owe you now; I wish for us to sort our 'differences' to day so that I can proceed to complete accordingly my mortgage application". The First Plaintiff had gone prepared. The response from the First Defendant was "Forget it" in the presence of the Second Born child. In view of the reply the First Plaintiff elected not to proceed as he had prepared; he had taken a notebook with him wherein he had noted the cash and cheque amounts he had borrowed from the First Defendant in 1976. below the total of £ 700 he had written Interest? which he would write down intending to add such interest as the First Defendant would state; and the line below was endorsed with Total. HAD the First Defendant stipulated any interest (as the First Plaintiff expected of the First Defendant to do) the First Plaintiff would have proceeded to the next page of the note book; it was clearly endorsed with Kitchen estimate £ 4300, the line below Purchases £ 1700, the line below was endorsed Balance £ 2600, the line below was endorsed Split savings owes me half £ 1300, and because of the liberties the First Defendant had been taking for years the line below was endorsed with ADD interest at the same rate as will be claimed, and the line below was endorsed TOTAL to demand. It was only as a result of the First Defendant's words "FORGET IT" that the First Plaintiff elected no to proceed to a demand of the First Defendant there and then BECAUSE HE ID NOT WISH TO INTERVENE and or appear to interfere in the marriage and home of the miser and cruel First Defendant. However as herein below stated under paragraphs 64 (Letter 1994) & 88/91 (Court 1996) the First Defendant never abandoned his alleged claims against the First Plaintiff and in fact carried on repeating such maligned and malicious words and issues as the First Defendant sees fit in order to suit his aims at and on each occasion with others wilfully propagating and promoting the First Defendant's malicious, unfounded and unjustified falsehoods.
INSULTING Plaintiffs family - DISCRIMINATION - Boasting about brothers/sisters
18. In the course of the years leading to the Second Plaintiffs mastectomy operation and the ensuing radiotherapy and other treatment as was necessitated, the First Defendant and the Second Plaintiff acquired lands in Cyprus. By 1982 and after the return of the First Defendant from South Africa, following the funeral of his younger brother Nicos (paragraph 13 above), the First Defendant announced that with his brothers and sisters they had entered into an agreement to set up a company, hereinafter referred to as The Company to which they all vouched to transfer their individual land holdings; this he later changed to the lands they inherited from their mother and father; and this yet later to the lands only inherited from their mother alone. The First Defendant often boasted that his brothers and sisters were very successful in South Africa but he never spoke of the fact they were for ever seeking financial assistance and borrowing from the common funds of the First Defendant and the Second Plaintiff which the First Defendant had under his control. The idea of the common holding Company in Cyprus was to promote and encourage the development of the land holdings the brothers and sisters had in Cyprus. Following the declaration by the First Defendant that the lands inherited from their mother were to be transferred to the proposed Company the Second Plaintiff begun in earnest to demand explanations as to the proposed involvement of the First Defendant in the proposed company. The Second Defendant was aware that through the years their common funds had been used to bail the father of the First Defendant out of financial troubles; their common funds had been used to renovated and improve the maternal home of the First Defendant at his village in Cyprus; the property, the First Defendant stated was to be held and used as common property by all brothers and sisters when in Cyprus yet she had bad experiences when herself and the children were staying there; in the meantime the First Defendant never asked for and was never given any lands by his father and or any other, however, through the family grapevine it has of recent been stated that the father had given some land to the First Defendant to be held in joint names with the younger brother Mihalis. The First Defendant's plans and his proposed involvement in The Company in Cyprus were unacceptable to the Second Plaintiff, because while all of the propositions were being aired and promoted the children of the family and their urgent needs were being neglected by the First Defendant, as ever.
THE CHILDREN their needs and neglect by the First Defendant
THE FIRST BORN CHILD - Needs ignored by First Defendant
19. The First Born child after Secondary High School in 1984 enrolled for a course in Hotel Management and Administration at Waltham Forest College in East London. After gaining her first qualifications, even though she had secured high grades, the First Defendant simply ignored her wishes to carry on. Added to that extension of complete and utter indifference to the needs of others was the ever increasing meanness of the First Defendant when it came to parting with any money other than for his personal pleasures and needs. Because of the First Defendant's gross indifference and neglect of her needs the First Born child went to work at a hotel in Queensway; she stayed in because of the nature of her duties; she visited the Matrimonial Home only occasionally; she left that position and went to work at a Health Food store in Muswell Hill, North London owned by Jenny, the Second Defendants friend who used to take the children to and collect them from Junior school at Gidea Park. While the First Born was working at the Health Food store the First Defendant for the first time spoke of setting up, but acted not, a similar business to be run by the First Born child. At about that time there arose other opportunities such as freehold properties for investment purposes in London. The First Defendant's failures to act caused the First Born child to go back to work at another hotel until late 1990 when she had to go to South Africa to attend the funeral of a cousin who died in a car accident. She returned back to her work at the hotel before the end of 1990 and soon afterwards handed in one month's notice and resigned.
Stay in South Africa-acquaint self with facts - deprivation by First Defendant own Family
20. The Second Plaintiff persuaded the child to go back to South Africa and to stay with family members there for a number of reasons. First and foremost was the need to find out, if possible, what was going on and what the First Defendant was doing with such others as he was assisting financially over the years from the joint funds under his control. In the course of overheard telephone conversations, it was clear that financing the plans of others were much more important than meeting the needs of the children and the family the First Defendant created through marriage to the Second Plaintiff. The First Born child agreed there existed sound reasons for the need to know what the First Defendant was up to with his brothers and sisters. The First Born child had been living through and seen the results of the stress imposed on all, in the Matrimonial Home, because of the secrecy and the liberties the First Defendant had been taking with the joint funds under his control while ignoring everybody. The First Born child knew that over the years the First Defendant secured, under various pretexts, signatures from the Second Plaintiff and cashed in most of the Second Plaintiff's policies and other investments such as she had initiated before the marriage. The First Born child stayed in South Africa for about six months and returned to London when a nephew of the Plaintiffs was getting married in June 1991. In the course of her stay in South Africa the First Born child had ample opportunities to observe and note the realities of life from within; also the true position of each and every other member of the paternal family of the First Defendant. The First Born child noted the stark contrast of life within the household the First Defendant dominated and controlled selfishly and cruelly in London, with life from within the other households in South Africa. She spoke of such on the telephone and wrote of such other matters as were of interest to the Second Plaintiff and to the rest of the family in London.
Career IGNORED by First Defendant
21. The First Born child after she returned to London, in June 1991, went to work for a family friend who owned a fashion store in Oxford Street. The First Born child and the Second Born child went to Cyprus for a fortnight's holiday in August 1991; before leaving London their father, The First Defendant, told them not to interfere and or go anywhere near the building site where The Company was building hotel apartments; the First Defendant's words:- "You are not to go anywhere near what my brothers, my sisters and I are building in Cyprus; it is my business and that of my brothers and sisters; neither you nor your mother have any right to interfere". The children observed that other family members from the First Defendant's paternal family were there and busying themselves with visits to the site. In late 1991 the First Born left her position at the fashion store and went to Cyprus; she started work at a hotel in Paphos; she stayed in the village of the First Defendant at his maternal home that was renovated using moneys from joint funds under the control of the First Defendant; the Second Plaintiff consented to the use of their joint funds on the strict understanding that the property would remain a common holding for all family members to use in the course of visits and or stays in the village; over the years the Second Plaintiff consented also to the acquisition of lands using moneys from the joint funds under the control of the First Defendant, as stated above under paragraph 18.
First taste of First Defendant's family 'at work' on other relations/relationships
22. The First Born child went to work at the hotel apartments when these were finished in April 1992; she had been in Cyprus for less than a year by the Summer of 1992 when the Second Born child announced the break up of her engagement to the young solicitor after returning from a break in Cyprus (as referred to in paragraph 24). She was caused to resign her position because of maligned activities by 'relatives of the First Defendant, also interfering in other matters. The First Born child had met a young man in Cyprus to whom, in accordance with opinions and advise from members of the paternal family of the First Defendant, the First Born child should proceed to announce an engagement and that the First Defendant should proceed to do so for the sake of the family; there were numerous telephone calls from Cyprus from the sister of the First Defendant; at every opportunity she would raise the issue; the persistent 'interference' from the sister added to the financial disagreements and arguments between the First Defendant and the Second Plaintiff. Family members and friends in London got to know of these additional problems. Finally the First Defendant and the Second Plaintiff went to Cyprus in October 1992 in order to meet with the family of the young man, something the First Defendant had done earlier in the year when he went to Cyprus in connection with The Company's affairs in April/May 1992 while the Second Plaintiff carried on working at the family business the salon in Seven Kings.
THE SECOND BORN CHILD - Similar indifference to her career needs by the First Defendant
23. The Second Born child left Secondary High School in 1987 at 16 and enrolled at the Redbridge College to study for her A levels and to prepare for a professional career. As with the other children the First Defendant took no interest and did not concern himself with her needs and or her plans for her own future. The Second Born child had been working on Saturdays and mid-week for some time before she left Secondary High School; she carried on working on Saturdays, also during holidays and in between terms; she was doing very well at College but because of the First Defendant's indifference to her needs she had no option but to abandon full time studies in 1989 and went to work for an advertising agency in the West End of London. Following the loss of a friend of the Second Plaintiff (who had also undergone a mastectomy operation) the Second Born child became close friends with one of the sons (a twin) of the deceased friend. By that time the Second Born child had changed employment and was working for a Computer software company closer home; she was well liked and was progressing rapidly. Her friendship with one of the twins developed to a closer bond and in October 1990, during a visit to the Matrimonial Home, the young man announced to the First Defendant of his and the Second Born child's decision to get engaged. The First Defendant simply enquired of the young man if he had given his decision serious consideration. The First Defendant did nothing to make the young man welcome in the family, even though he knew the background of and the family from whence the young man hailed. At the time of the announcement the young man had finished his studies, qualified as a solicitor and was searching for a suitable position; the Second Born child herself was looking for alternative employment; she needed to provide for her own plans which included her determination to carry on with her studies. Because of the domination and total control of the joint finances by the First Defendant the Second Plaintiff was not in a position to assist the young couple; worse, the First Defendant would have no one else speak of and or make any suggestions to him as to the needs of his children and what to do; the engagement and commitments of the young couple to one another were interfering with the First Defendants plans and he was not going to be deterred from his own aims and ignored the Second Born child's needs.
First Defendant's Indifference to her needs causes child to WORK while cousin benefits
24. The Second Born child's progress at work included secondment for her to continue her studies for a BA degree in business administration; she secured day releases and enrolled in a sandwich course. The betrothed couple went to Cyprus for the Summer vacation in 1991 arriving at different times; no one from the First Defendant's paternal family showed any interest and or welcomed the young man in the fold; on the contrary, a number of them expressed dislike of the young man and one person in particular did his best to break up the relationship. The indifference of all, the interference by maligned individuals, the inability of the Second Plaintiff to assist the young couple to secure a place to live in (in the United Kingdom) had taken its toll on the couple's relationship. Eventually, because of the maligned interference and gross manipulation by members of the paternal family of the First Defendant in Cyprus, during the Summer vacation, the Second Born child after returning to London in August 1991 announced the couple were breaking up; at that point the indifferent and callous First Defendant begun to blame the Second Plaintiff as responsible for it all.
First Defendant's other priorities cause child to break up engagement because of OTHERS
25. Throughout the first half of 1991 and for almost a year, following the betrothal announcement (in 1990) the situation did not change; in the course of the holiday break (as stated in paragraph 24) with the First Born child, in August 1991, the events in London before departure and in Cyprus subsequently took their toll. The gross indifference of the First Defendant arose out of his self centred master plan. At the time, when the First Plaintiff was informed of the Second Born child's predicaments and problems and of the initial crude response from the First Defendant, also when he heard of the subsequent break up the First Plaintiff advised the Second Plaintiff to speak to the First Defendant and to point out that the needs of the Second Born child were more important than his private plans and those of the paternal family of the First Defendant and their lands in Cyprus. The First Plaintiff also raised the issue of and the searches for additional finances of which the First Defendant had spoken of extensively and were being argued repeatedly between the First Defendant and the Second Plaintiff who had objected to and did not wish for the joint funds to be used in and for whatever the First Defendant got involved in with his brothers and sisters and or The Company (refer to paragraphs 45 - 51 below). The Second Plaintiff remarked that it would be like speaking to a brick wall because the First Defendant had no time for anyone else. The First Plaintiff suggested speaking to the young couple but the Second Plaintiff told him not to do so because the First Defendant already made up his mind that the 'engagement' was but the Second Plaintiffs 'doing'; evidently that the betrothed couple had expressed their own desire to get engaged and married was of no interest to the First Defendant; the fact that they were seeking a bookings at the church, with an orchestra, made arrangements with a photographer and a videographer and attempted to draw the First Defendant in the negotiations with caterers were irrelevant to the First Defendant; and to his blunt indifference was added the crude interference from members of the paternal family of the First Defendant in Cyprus. The Second Plaintiff demanded of and expected the First Defendant to take an interest in the Second Born child's plans for an engagement proper. Also for her plans and search for somewhere to live which is of essence under Greek Cypriot custom and tradition; providing newlyweds with a home is part and parcel of the girl's family, the responsibility of her parents. The Second Born child had every reason to expect such a provision of the First Defendant; he had after all acquired, from the joint funds, a property in Edmonton, North London, in the name of the First Born child when the First Born child returned from South Africa. As with the two properties in Hornsey, the First Defendant was letting all properties with the revenue from these under his control as all other funds.
LOSS OF self sufficiency EMPLOYMENT and crude indifference by FIRST DEFENDANT
26. Over the Easter break of 1992 the Second Born child went to Cyprus. When she returned to London she told the Second Plaintiff that she was going to do her best to complete her studies because of what transpired in Cyprus; she also informed the Second Plaintiff that the Third Born child was in need of urgent help; evidently he was going through rough times at the place where he was staying. The information was disturbing; from one extreme, neglect and indifference from the father in the United Kingdom, to another extreme, manipulation and interference in Cyprus. Domineering and impositions attached to and arising out of non conducive conditions for peace of mind were generating rebellion, confusion and frustrations and the First Defendant was doing his bit in the course of telephone conversations to upset the Third Born child by accusing it to be the cause of arguments between the Second Plaintiff and the First Defendant. The Second Plaintiff had cause to go to Cyprus earlier that year in order to seek information and clarification from the solicitors there as herein below stated under paragraph 47.
The secrecy by FIRST DEFENDANT causing stress to all - his indifference to others damaging
27. The Second Born child carried on working and studying and doing her best under very difficult conditions; following the announcement that the Third Born child was in need of help (as above stated in paragraph 25) the Second Plaintiff went to Cyprus in June because of that issue; also because of another matter that was of utmost importance to her and to the children. The First Defendant persistently ignored the Second Plaintiff's concerns and her objections to secret deals with others using the joint funds under the control of the First Defendant. Following the attempt by Junior to secure an appropriate Letter of Authority from the First Defendant for the Second Plaintiff to secure information and documents form the solicitors of The Company in Cyprus, the Second Born child was asked by the First Defendant to prepare his own version Letter of Authority as referred to in paragraph 47 below. The Second Born child was more than aware of the problems, and she herself had experienced the First Defendant's indifference and disregard of all in the Matrimonial Home for and in pursuit of The Company's affairs and the plans of the First Defendant with his brothers and sisters in Cyprus. Following the second trip to Cyprus by the Second Plaintiff in October 1992, as referred to in paragraph .... above, the Second Born child remained alone in the Matrimonial Home with the First Defendant who carried on ignoring her every need and existence; as with all other children he was too busy to even talk to her of her needs; he was for ever dealing and wheeling with his brothers and sisters in their ever increasing secret and private affairs.
Stresses through lack of income and support - pressures in living with FIRST DEFENDANT
28. The Second Born child was made redundant in April 1993 and went to Cyprus in May; there she went to work at the hotel apartments run by The Company; she stayed in Cyprus until the end of September and returned expecting and anticipating the First Defendant to take interest in her desire to proceed with her studies; he showed none. She searched for a similar work situation in order to continue with her studies through a sandwich course; she enrolled at college and was attending the courses but she was obliged to cease because she was lumbered with all sorts of 'responsibilities' for and due to the wedding preparations for the First Born child; it was to take place in the United Kingdom in December. The child was assigned all of the preparations leading up to the big event; with the mother (Second Plaintiff) in Cyprus caring for and looking after the Third Born child, and with the father (First Defendant) attending to other matters in which he and his brothers were involved in she was the only person 'free' to deal with such matters as were delegated to her. There was even furniture to be selected and ordered for the Matrimonial Home; it was time to turn it into a 'home' proper, having benefited from carpets some months earlier. Leading up to the wedding the First Defendant bought a second hand car, a 'Fiesta', for the Second Born child; the child told the Second Plaintiff that it was nothing but a car to use for transporting the guests due to arrive in the United Kingdom for the wedding; she had been used to a car; the last Company she worked for provided one for her to use.
Imposing responsibilities for the BIG day of another to a victim of THE FIRST DEFENDANT
29. The Second Born child was under a lot of pressures before the wedding on 2nd December 1994. The day following the Registry at Barkingside Town Hall other members were busy running around making arrangements for the reception that seemed to have gone wrong; there were problems between the caterers and the Hotel where the reception was to take place and she was given a chance to sleep late; when her room was found to be locked and there was no response the door was forced open; she had taken her own life. One of the first tasks of the First Defendant was to 'instruct' the transfer of the girls' own funds as she had saved and for shares held in her name to himself; evidently the departed had no sister, no brother and no mother.
THE THIRD BORN CHILD and the Second Plaintiff's struggle for the child's education
FIRST DEFENDANT indifferent and unconcerned as to child's needs for the future
30. In 1988 the Second Plaintiff was worried about the type of company the Third Born child was keeping and associating with after school hours. The First Defendant simply ignored the situation and took no interest in the welfare of the children and or their future, as usual; the Second Plaintiff acted of her own; she applied her energies first to the urgent needs of the Third Born child, as a matter of priority; she consulted friends and eventually asked of the First Plaintiff to express his views and opinions about a private English school in Cyprus, because of his own experiences with Education in Cyprus where he had taught at a Secondary Technical / Vocational School in the past. A place was secured for the Third Born child at the private Gregory Grammar School in Nicosia Cyprus where he could carry on with his English Education; it was considered advisable and advantageous for the Third Born child to lodge with his aunt Maroulla there; Maroulla's son was in the United Kingdom for Higher Education and he was and had been benefiting through financial assistance from the First Defendant since her son arrived in the United Kingdom. For the needs of the Third Born child in Cyprus the First Defendant transferred funds there and these were under the control of his sister Maroulla, as with other funds over the years.
First Defendant blind to the truths and facts around him - other priorities than his Family
31. In June 1992 the Second Plaintiff went to Cyprus, following the Second Born child's observations there (as referred to in paragraph....). On arrival she confirmed the Second Born child was right; she hardly entered the house and she was told bluntly, "Your son is not fit for higher education and or qualifications; you better sent him to learn a trade"; this from the Third Born child's aunt and her daughter; they also raised issues about the child's interest and the time spent on the computer that was put together in London the previous August and the child took to Cyprus with him. The Second Plaintiff sought professional advice and assistance because she was concerned that the indifference from the father (First Defendant) and the problems caused by such others were at the centre of the child's own reactionary indifference to others. When the Second Plaintiff returned to the United Kingdom she spoke to the First Defendant; typically he had nothing to say and ignored the situation.
Others not the FIRST DEFENDANT decide about his own children's needs - mother alone
32. In October 1992 the Second Plaintiff went to Cyprus again with the First Defendant because of the numerous telephone calls (referred to in paragraph ....). In the course of the visit his relatives repeated to the First Defendant their opinions and advice (as stated in paragraph ....). The First Defendant's sister, in her efforts to impose her plans for the Third Born child in the course of an argument attempted to attack the Second Plaintiff but the Third Born child intervened and obstructed the intended strike. It was obvious at that point that the Third Born child needed a change of environment; the Second Plaintiff telephoned a cousin to collect her and thereafter secured alternative accommodation; she rented a flat with a well respected family and told the Third Born child that she was going to stay in Cyprus and stand by him in order to afford him the opportunities and guidance he needed to overcome the impositions thrust at him by others; she decided she was staying in Cyprus and that was that; she considered that it was about time the First Defendant recognised that he had no option but to accept that decision of the Second Plaintiff; it had been made very clear in arguments over the preceding years and months that the First Defendant first and foremost had a duty to his own children and in particular how to prepare them to meet the demands of them in the years ahead. The First Defendant was invited to meet the cost of furnishings and other items needed for the flat; the Second Plaintiff then arranged for the transfer of funds she herself had entrusted to the sister of the First Defendant years earlier; the said funds were but savings from holiday trips to Cyprus over the years.
MOTHER the Second Plaintiff's priority, the needs of the child.
33. The Second Plaintiff did her best to guide and assist the Third Born child to get through his school year ahead while making sure the child was also getting all possible guidelines in every aspect of his daily life; the child met with and associated with other children that had been born overseas and were studying and or had 're-patriated' to Cyprus with their parents. It was the child's last year at school in Cyprus and the Second Defendant wished for the child to succeed so that he could return to the United Kingdom for higher Education and studies. In London the First Defendant begun to make all sorts of unfounded and unjustified allegations to family members such as the First Plaintiff and his octogenarian mother. Through force of habit and because she knew of and had recognised that the miser First Defendant was 'concerned' about the expenses incurred in Cyprus she maintained a tight control on her expenses from the banked funds (as referred to in paragraph......above). The First Defendant not content with the unfounded allegations he was making in the United Kingdom, he would often telephone the Third Born Child and blame the child for separating the parents; the calls were causing anxieties to the child and as such were inconsiderate of the child's own needs.
Link to second part: Continued
and THE YOUNG GIRL IS DRIVEN TO SUICIDE (other's than the culprits are blamed and the Coroner's Inquest is NOT TOLD OF THE FACTS. There exist law's for cruelty to animals in the UNITED KINGDOM; evidently there is no law for cruelty to humans, as the Lawrence family have found out, safe perhaps the 1988 Criminal Justice Act, the provisions of which we specifically draw attention to, in the Stephen Lawrence 'saga'.
Link to:- h-r home page Home Office Lord Chancellor Police
Copyright subsists on all material on our web-site, owned by the authors of same.