Mohammed Arshad Alam v Pervez Alam & Anor
[2023] EWHC 1460 (Ch)
Vanida Walker v Ekkachai Somboonsarn
26 April 2024
[2024] EWHC 919 (Ch)
High Court
A mother and son fought over who owned several businesses and houses. Because of unclear records and conflicting stories, the judge carefully looked at who actually paid for things. The judge decided who owned what based on who mostly paid for each item, even though the paperwork sometimes showed the wrong person as the owner.
Key Facts
- •Dispute between mother (Claimant) and son (Defendant) over ownership of three companies and four properties.
- •Companies: Thai Metro Limited (TM Ltd), Anglo Thai Limited, Finfish Catering Limited.
- •Properties: Flat 22 BM, 3 Chargrove Close, 78 Hermit Road, 38 Charlotte Street.
- •Long history of transactions and agreements, with limited contemporaneous documentation.
- •Allegations of forged signatures on company documents.
- •Disputes over beneficial ownership despite apparent legal ownership.
- •Evidence based on witness testimony, company documents, and financial records.
Legal Principles
Assessment of witness evidence considering memory reliability, biases, and the value of contemporaneous documents.
R (Dutta) v General Medical Council [2020] EWHC 1974 (Admin)
Limited weight given to demeanour-based judgments of witness credibility; focus on consistency with other evidence and known facts.
R (on the application of SS (Sri Lanka) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWCA Civ 1391
Proper preparation of witness statements to avoid influencing witness recollection, particularly in cases of language barriers.
CPR PD 57AC and Appendix
Non est factum: A party can escape liability if misled into executing a document essentially different from what they intended.
Chitty on Contracts (35th Edn) paragraph 5-049
Constructive trusts: A trust arising from the conduct and intentions of parties, especially in relation to contributions to property purchase.
Case law not explicitly cited but implied in the judge's reasoning
Outcomes
Claimant is the beneficial owner of the rights of subscriber in relation to the three companies.
Claimant's signatures (or adopted forgeries) show her as subscriber; evidence suggests an agreement she would beneficially own the shares.
Claimant is the beneficial owner of 78 Hermit Road and 38 Charlotte Street.
Majority of purchase price came from Claimant; mortgage payments were covered by income from properties and businesses.
Defendant is the beneficial owner of Flat 22 BM.
Beneficial ownership transferred to Defendant through the 2009 Declaration of Trust or the 2015 transfer.
Claimant failed to prove beneficial ownership of 3 Chargrove Close.
Insufficient evidence to determine beneficial ownership; legal title was with Defendant upon acquisition.