 |
 |
 |
 |
Initials and Surname of witness: R JAYADEVAN
Statement No of this witness: 1
Identifying initials and
number of each exhibit referred to: RJ.1
Date of Statement: 03.2005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CASE NO: 050265
CHANCERY DIVISION
BETWEEN
SIVAYOGAM (A Registered Charity)
Claimant/Defendant
-and-
THE GOVERNORS OF PAVITT HALL
Defendant/Respondent
__________________________________________________
WITNESS STATEMENT OF RAJASINGHAM JAYADEVAN
___________________________________________________
I, RAJASINGHAM JAYADEVAN of Pavitt Hall, Alperton, Union Road, Wembley, Middlesex,
HAO 4AH WILL SAY as follows:
I am the tenant of Pavitt Hall Alperton and chairman of the Eelapatheeswarar Aalayam, a
Hindu temple that occupied Pavitt Hall. I make this statement in support of the Defendant’s
application to have the injunction discharged.
I have had sight of the Claimant’s application and supporting documents. My
understanding is that the Claimant is suggesting that they have somehow taken over the
Eelapatheeswarar Aalayam (‘the Temple’). In a letter to my landlord of the 5 March 2005
they state that the Charity (Sivayogam) “has taken over the assets and liabilities in the
Temple including the Lease”. I exhibit this and other relevant documents herein in the
exhibit marked “RJ.1- bundle”.
The Claimant is incorrect in saying that the management of the Temple has changed. I
exhibit herein the lease for Pavitt Hall taken in August 2004. As can be seen there are four
tenants of Pavitt Hall. As a leasholder I confirm that we do not want to assign the tenancy.
We want to continue in occupation of Pavitt Hall and the running of the Temple as always
intended. The Claimant is seeking to interfere in the contractual rights between us and the
Defendant when both are happy with the current contractual relationship.
The documents exhibited in the witness statement of Mr Seevaratnam purport to transfer
‘the assets, liabilities and the whole of the administration of the Eelapatheeswarar Aalayam
to Sivayogam, the Charitable Trust’ (See NS.2 – page 12). Although signed by me these
documents were obtained under duress. I was held in Prison for 62 days by agents of the
Liberation of Tigers of Tamil Elham (‘LTTE’) in the region of Vanni in Sri Lanka. It was
during this period and in fear of losing my life that I signed the documents.
Background to imprisonment and intimidation
My imprisonment has been widely reported within the Tamil Press and I exhibit copies of
articles from the Asian Tribune of the 9 March 2005 and 19 March 2005. I also attach a
report from Tamil Net of the 22 March 2005. For the sake of brevity I have not exhibited
other reports.
On the 27 December 2004 I flew to Sri Lanka in order to consider what support can be
provided following the Tsunami. I visited with another of the tenants of Pavitt Hall, Mr A K
Vivekananthan (who I will refer to as AK). When there, I and A K were held captive and
asked to sign the documents about the transfer of the temple. We were help captive in a
derelict bungalow by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Ealam (‘LTTE’). This is a proscribed
organisation under the Terrorism Act 2000. In order to gain funding the LTTE wishes to try
and gain control of the Eelapatheeswarar Aalayam Temple and other Tamil businesses
and organisations.
While imprisoned we were asked to sign various documents purporting to transfer the
Temple to the Claimants.
The LTTE has control of the Vanni Region and is the dominant military organisation in the
area. I was kept in a semi abandoned bungalow surrounded by a perimeter fence. The
derelict building had a broken asbestos roof and was in a filthy condition. We drank rain
water from a tank which at one point was found to have a dead rat within it. After 42 days A
K was released and allowed to return to London in order to put pressure on the other
Trustees to agree to the transfer of the Temple. I remained for a further 20 days all on my
own. I was told to sign the documents and warned of the “dire consequences” if I did not. I
was increasingly unwell. I have a problem with a perturity gland for which I take steroids. In
protest at my continued detention I began a fast and would only eat one small meal of
bread and butter. This continued for 14 days. My captors refused to release me and I then
began taking no food at all. I ate nothing for 6 days and after this was finally released.
During my detention I tried to attempt twice by taking an overdose of steroids. I was
distressed at the time but at such low moments regained self control and stopped myself.
On my release I immediately went to the British High Commission and met Counsellor
Attache Mr Ryan Griffin. I think this was around the 11 March 2005. On my return to
London I reported matters to DC Cremins of the Kidnap Unit of the Metropolitan Police at
Scotland Yard. He is carrying out investigations.
When signing the documents I knew that they were being obtained under duress. I was
fearful of what the LTTE would do. Effectively Vanni is like a “mafia state”. The aim of the
LTTE is to take control of all overseas Tamil businesses and organisations in order to pass
money to the LTTE. Mr Seevaratnam has very close connections with the leadership of the
LTTE and I believe was instrumental in my detention. Organisations such as the Claimants
are a front organisation of the LTTE and are designed to pass money to the LTTE which is
a proscribed organisation under the Terrorism Act 2000.
The Eelapatheeswarar Aalayam is a Company of which I am one of the shareholders. The
document purporting to transfer the shares is not contained within a Stock Transfer Form
and I believe is ineffective in transferring the shares. The Temple shares have not been
transferred and it remains our intention (as it has throughout) to continue running the
Temple. We have a Lease with the Defendants and wish to continue with the signed
contractual arrangement between us. The Lease is exhibited within the bundle and
confirms that there should be no assignment or transfer of the Agreement to any other
party. Neither I nor the other tenants wish to transfer the Lease. We want to continue in the
same contractual arrangements with the Defendant.
For this reason I support the Defendant’s application to have the injunction dismissed.
I, RAJASINGHAM JAYADEVAN believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are
true.
Signed ……………………………
RAJASINGHAM JAYADEVAN
Dated: March 2005
CASE NO:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CHANCERY DIVISION
BETWEEN
SIVAYOGAM (A Registered Charity)
Claimant/Defendant
-and-
THE GOVERNORS OF PAVITT HALL
Defendant/Respondent
___________________________________________________
WITNESS STATEMENT OF RAJASINGHAM JAYADEVAN
___________________________________________________
Bindman & Partners
275 Grays Inn Road
LONDON WC1X 8QB
Tel: 020 7833 4433
Fax: 020 7837 9792
Ref: PR/DB
Statement made on behalf of: Defendant
Initials and Surname of witness: R JAYADEVAN
Statement No of this witness: 1
Identifying initials and
number of each exhibit referred to: RJ.1
Date of Statement: 03.2005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CASE NO:
CHANCERY DIVISION
BETWEEN
SIVAYOGAM (A Registered Charity)
Claimant/Defendant
-and-
THE GOVERNORS OF PAVITT HALL
Defendant/Respondent
_________________________
EXHIBIT “EJ.1- Bundle”
_________________________
This is the Exhibit marked “EJ.1” referred to in the Statement of
RAJASINGHAM JAYADEVAN
Signed ……………………………
RAJASINGHAM JAYADEVAN
Dated March 2005