Shama Amnir & Ors. v Fahid Bala & Ors.
[2023] EWHC 1054 (Ch)
Sharas Alexander Changizi v Robin Donal Mayes & Anor
9 January 2024
[2024] EWHC 6 (Ch)
High Court
Sharas sued his father's executors. He owed them a lot of money from previous lawsuits. The executors asked the judge to stop Sharas's new lawsuit until he paid them. The judge agreed because Sharas had acted badly in previous cases and hadn't shown he couldn't afford to pay. The judge also decided that money from the sale of houses was still considered 'house-money' for legal purposes.
Key Facts
- •Sharas Alexander Changizi (Sharas) brought a Part 8 claim against the executors of his father's estate (Robin Donald Mayes and Pamela Kathleen Changizi) seeking disclosure of documents and information.
- •Sharas owes substantial unpaid costs from previous related litigations, totaling £115,959.22.
- •The estate includes proceeds from the sale of two properties, raising the question of whether these are movable or immovable assets under English law.
- •Sharas's conduct in previous proceedings was deemed abusive in some instances.
- •Sharas seeks distribution of his share of the estate or at least £115,959.22 to cover his costs.
- •The defendants applied for a stay of the Part 8 claim pending payment of the outstanding costs.
Legal Principles
Inherent jurisdiction to stay a claim until outstanding costs from previous related claims are paid.
Budge v Budge (1849) 12 Bevan 385; Sinclair v British Telecommunications plc [2000] EWCA Civ 6; Investment Invoice Financing Ltd v Limehouse Board Mills Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 9; Powel Entertainment v Ryder [2011] EWHC 2957 (Ch); Wahab v Khan [2011] EWHC 908 (Ch); JEB Recoveries LLP v Binstock [2017] EWHC 1123 (Ch); Al-Koronky v Time Life Entertainment Group Ltd [2005] EWHC 1688 (QB)
Determination of movable/immovable property status for succession purposes; lex situs applies at the date of death.
Re Berchtold [1923] 1 Ch 192; Administration of Estates Act 1925; Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996; Dicey, Morris & Collins 16th ed.; Re Piercy [1895] 1 Ch 83; Philipson-Stow v IRC [1961] AC 727
Liability for Inheritance Tax on potentially exempt transfers; primary and secondary liability.
Inheritance Tax Act 1984, sections 199(1)(b), 199(2), and 204(8)
Outcomes
The defendants' application for a stay of the Part 8 claim was granted.
Sharas's failure to pay substantial outstanding costs from previous related proceedings constitutes an abuse of process. The court found that Sharas had not demonstrated that a stay would stifle his claim and it would be unjust to require the defendants to bear further costs.
Sharas's application for distribution of his share of the estate was dismissed.
The court found that Sharas's share of the estate is less than his outstanding costs liability.
The proceeds of sale of the English properties remain immovable assets under English law for succession purposes.
The decisive moment for determining the character of the assets is the date of death. The sale of the properties does not change this.
Sharas is liable to the estate for Inheritance Tax and interest paid by the executors on his behalf regarding a Potentially Exempt Transfer.
The executors paid the tax based on Sharas's own representations that the transfer was a gift; he failed to discharge his primary liability.