Maghsud Azhdari v Farhang Adjari
[2024] EWHC 2824 (Ch)
Aslam Abbas v Shabir Hussain & Ors
19 September 2023
[2023] EWHC 2322 (Ch)
High Court
Two brothers fought over a piece of land. One brother said they had an agreement about it, but he couldn't prove it because he didn't have good records or reliable witnesses. The judge believed the other brother's story more, so the first brother lost the case, except for getting a small amount of money back.
Key Facts
- •Dispute over beneficial ownership of a development property (Disputed Property) valued at £100,000.
- •Claimant (C) and First Defendant (D1) are brothers involved in a long-running family feud.
- •Disputes surround various property transactions and business dealings between the brothers over nearly 30 years, including the purchase and development of Highgate, the operation of a restaurant business (Karachi Fried Chicken/Zaika), and the joint purchase of Tilt Hammer and Main Street.
- •Key disagreements concern oral agreements in 2009 and 2015 regarding ownership shares and payments.
- •A violent confrontation (the Confrontation) occurred in 2019 between the claimant's family and D1.
- •Transfer of the Disputed Property through multiple companies controlled by D1 is a key part of the dispute.
Legal Principles
Common intention constructive trust requires an express agreement, reliance by the claimant, detriment to the claimant, and unconscionability to deny the claimant's ownership.
Matchmove Limited v Dowding and Church [2016] EWCA Civ 1233
A constructive trust is a discretionary equitable remedy, potentially denied if the claimant's misconduct is sufficiently serious and connected to the remedy sought.
Royal Bank of Scotland Plc v Highland Financial Partners LP [2013] EWCA Civ 328
Outcomes
Claim dismissed.
The court found the claimant's version of the 2015 oral agreement to be less likely than the defendant's, primarily due to inconsistencies and contradictions in the claimant's evidence regarding payments and the lack of corroborating evidence. The court also found the claimant's evidence to be unreliable and lacking credibility in many respects.
D1 to repay C £5,000.
This represents an undisputed payment made by C.