Ann Nilsson & Anor v Collette Cynberg
[2024] EWHC 2164 (Ch)
Arvindar Singh (as trustee in bankruptcy of Mrs Angela Garcha) v Angela Garcha & Ors
22 July 2024
[2024] EWHC 1844 (Ch)
High Court
A trustee sued to claim ownership of three houses. The first judge's decision was appealed because he didn't clearly explain his reasons. The appeal court agreed that the first judge's explanation wasn't good enough and sent the case back to be tried again, except for some parts of the case which were decided in favour of the homeowners.
Key Facts
- •Appeal against District Judge Rouine's decision dismissing a trustee's claim for declaration of beneficial interest in three properties.
- •Properties purchased in joint or sole names of Angela and Harpreet Garcha.
- •Angela Garcha declared bankrupt in 2018.
- •Statements made in previous Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA) proceedings appeared to assert joint ownership.
- •Marital Agreement between Mr and Mrs Garcha in 2005 stated that all post-agreement property belonged to Mr Garcha.
- •The authenticity of the Marital Agreement was not challenged on appeal.
Legal Principles
Adequacy of reasons in judgments.
English v Emery Reimbold & Strick Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 605; [2002] 1 WLR 2409
Appellate court interference with trial judge's findings of fact.
Weymont v Place [2015] EWCA Civ 289
Dealing with contrary evidence in judgments.
Simetra Global Assets Ltd v Ikon Finance Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 1413
Trustee's duty to remain neutral in disputes between rival beneficial claimants.
Halsbury’s Laws of England (Vol 98, 2019) at §347
High hurdle for appeals against trial judge's discretion in costs.
Terracorp Ltd v Mistry [2020] EWHC 2623 (Ch)
Outcomes
Appeal allowed on grounds 1-3 and 5-6.
Judge failed to provide adequate reasons for conclusions on beneficial ownership, failing to address inconsistent evidence and explain its rejection. Insufficient reasoning provided for the interpretation of the Marital Agreement.
Appeal dismissed on grounds 7-8 and 9.
Sufficient reasoning provided for the rejection of detrimental reliance claim; judge's discretion regarding costs upheld.