Mantir Singh Sahota v Albinder Singh Sahota & Ors
[2024] EWHC 2165 (Ch)
Syed Ahmed & Anor v Tipu Sultan Ahmed
2 March 2023
[2023] EWHC 454 (Ch)
High Court
Two brothers fought over their company. The brother who sued couldn't prove the other one stole money, so he lost. The other brother got half the company and money for being unfairly fired.
Key Facts
- •Syed Ahmed (Claimant 1) and Tipu Sultan Ahmed (Defendant) are brothers, directors of Panache Leasing Ltd.
- •Syed holds all issued shares, Tipu claims 50% beneficial ownership.
- •Tipu managed the company's daily operations until an injunction in November 2020.
- •Syed alleges Tipu misappropriated company funds, including rent from sublets.
- •Tipu counterclaims for a declaration of 50% share ownership and damages for unlawful dismissal.
- •There is limited contemporaneous documentation regarding the company's early operations and agreements between the brothers.
- •Significant evidence relies on recordings of meetings between Syed and Tipu in Autumn 2020.
Legal Principles
A barrister must have clear instructions and reasonably credible material to allege fraud.
Chancery Guide 2022, CPR PD 16, paragraph 8.2
Fraud or dishonesty must be distinctly alleged and proved; sufficiently particularised; and not consistent with innocence.
Ivey v Genting [2017] UKSC 67, Young v Chief Constable of Warwickshire [2020] EWHC 308 (QB), Three Rivers District Council v Bank of England [2003] 2 AC 1, JSC Bank of Moscow v Kekhman [2015] EWHC 3073
Outcomes
Claim dismissed.
Insufficient evidence to support allegations of fraud or dishonesty by Tipu. Company records show transparency, and cash was used for legitimate expenses. Syed's evidence was often inconsistent and unreliable.
Declaration granted: Tipu is the beneficial owner of 50% of the Company's share capital.
Evidence from meetings in September and November 2020, along with other documentation, supports Tipu's claim that a 50/50 shareholding was agreed from the outset.
Damages awarded for unlawful dismissal.
Tipu was summarily dismissed without good reason; the allegations of gross misconduct were not proven.
Injunction discharged.
Based on the findings of fact, the injunction was unwarranted.