C. CHRISTO & CO LIMITED v NICHOLAS CHRISTOFOROU & Anor.
[2023] EWHC 1094 (KB)
Iftikhar Malik v Vaqar Malik
4 November 2024
[2024] EWCA Civ 1323
Court of Appeal
Two brothers fought over a flat for years. One brother said he wouldn't claim the flat, then tried to. The court said that was unfair and the other brother gets to keep the flat.
Key Facts
- •Dispute between brothers Iftikhar and Vaqar Malik over ownership of a London flat.
- •Iftikhar purchased the flat in 1978; Vaqar claims adverse possession since 1987.
- •Prior proceedings (1987 Action) were stayed; Vaqar made statements in 2012 suggesting no adverse possession claim.
- •New proceedings (2017 Action) commenced; Vaqar asserted adverse possession; Iftikhar argued abuse of process.
- •HHJ Gerald found for Iftikhar, concluding abuse of process; Vaqar appealed.
- •Bacon J allowed Vaqar's appeal, finding no abuse of process.
- •Iftikhar and Vaqar both appeal to the Court of Appeal.
Legal Principles
Abuse of process/estoppel by conduct; a broad, merits-based assessment, not constrained by strict rules.
LA Micro Group (UK) Ltd v LA Micro Group Inc [2021] EWCA Civ 1429; [2022] 1 WLR 336, at §19-26
Appellate court interference with a first instance evaluative judgment only where immaterial factors considered, material factors omitted, error in principle, impermissible conclusion, etc.
Aldi Stores Ltd v WAP Group Plc [2007] EWCA Civ 1260; [2008] 1 WLR 749
Adverse possession requirements and intent.
Various case law implicitly referenced
Promissory estoppel requires clear and unequivocal representation.
Snell’s Equity (34th ed., at §12-04)
Findings of dishonesty must be pleaded; adverse findings on witness character may be made without pleading.
Three Rivers District Council v Governor and Company of the Bank of England (No.3) [2003] 2 AC 1 (HL)
Striking out actions for want of prosecution (Birkett v James [1978] AC 297 and Arbuthnot Latham Bank Ltd v Trafalgar Holdings Ltd [1998] 1 WLR 1426).
Birkett v James [1978] AC 297; Arbuthnot Latham Bank Ltd v Trafalgar Holdings Ltd [1998] 1 WLR 1426
Outcomes
Court of Appeal allows Iftikhar's appeal on the abuse of process point.
Bacon J erred in finding no abuse of process; while an objectively unequivocal statement isn't required, Vaqar's statements to Mr Jarvis QC were intended to, and did, influence the decision not to lift the stay in the 1987 action. HHJ Gerald's findings on Vaqar's conduct were justified.
HHJ Gerald's order in the 2017 Action is restored.
Vaqar's claim in adverse possession is an abuse of process given his prior conduct.
Remaining points on appeals become otiose.
Iftikhar's success on appeal renders further consideration of other points unnecessary.