Arvindar Singh (as trustee in bankruptcy of Mrs Angela Garcha) v Angela Garcha & Ors
[2024] EWHC 1844 (Ch)
P v Q, R and S (Claim against Assets of Extended Family)
19 June 2024
[2024] EWFC 164 (B)
Family Court
A wife sued her husband and his parents over who owned several houses. The wife's story changed often, and the judge didn't believe her. The judge ruled that the husband's parents owned the houses, not the wife.
Key Facts
- •Financial remedy proceedings between a wife ('P') and husband ('Q'), with Q's parents ('R' and 'S') as intervenors.
- •Disputes centered around the beneficial ownership of four properties (Property 1, Property 2, Property 3, Property 5).
- •Applicant (P) claimed beneficial interest in Property 1 and Property 5, alleging constructive and resulting trusts.
- •Respondents (Q, R, and S) denied applicant's claims, asserting the facts didn't support them.
- •The applicant's case was considered to be a 'moveable feast' with shifting arguments and lack of clear pleadings.
- •Significant evidence was presented from various sources including Form E's, witness statements, and bank statements.
- •The court considered evidence of financial contributions, discussions, and the nature of the parties' relationships to determine beneficial ownership.
- •The applicant's evidence was deemed inconsistent and unreliable in several instances, with suggestions of untruthfulness regarding benefits claims and the IVA.
Legal Principles
Equity follows the law; presumption of beneficial ownership aligning with legal title.
Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17
Constructive trust can be established by express common intention or inferred agreement based on conduct.
Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset [1991] 1 AC 107
Indirect contributions to mortgage may suffice to infer common intention (constructive trust).
Le Foe v Le Foe [2001] 2 FLR 970
Resulting trust analysis is applicable when property is purchased for development or letting.
Laskar v Laskar [2008] 2 FLR 589
Presumption of advancement is a weak presumption and can be rebutted by slight evidence.
Pettitt v Pettitt [1970] AC 777
Burden of proof lies with the person asserting a particular fact.
Standard of proof is the balance of probabilities.
Witness's lying on one matter does not invalidate all their testimony.
R v Lucas [1981] QB 720
Witness recollection is fallible and may be affected by various factors.
Gestmin SGPS SA v Credit Suisse (UK) Limited & another [2013] EWHC 3560 (Comm)
Need for proper pleading in complex property disputes.
TL v ML (Ancillary Relief: Claim against Assets of Extended Family) [2005] EWHC 2860 (Fam)
Outcomes
Applicant's claims regarding beneficial interest in Property 1 and Property 5 dismissed.
Applicant failed to discharge the burden of proof; evidence deemed unreliable and inconsistent; claims considered hopeless and based on shifting arguments and untruthfulness.