Balber Kaur Takhar v Gracefield Developments Limited & Ors
[2024] EWHC 1714 (Ch)
Tajleena Islam v Sultana Jahan Islam & Ors
8 May 2024
[2024] EWHC 1082 (Ch)
High Court
A family fought over houses after their dad died. The daughter said her mom and brother forged her signature on some papers and tricked her into signing others. The judge decided some signatures *were* forged and that the daughter was pressured into signing other documents without fully understanding what she was doing. The judge then decided that some of the documents weren't valid, meaning the daughter could get some or all of the houses back.
Key Facts
- •Mohammed Nurul Islam died on 13 June 2017, leaving behind a dispute over several properties.
- •Claimant Tajleena Islam, his daughter, alleged forgery and undue influence regarding property transfers.
- •Defendants Sultana Jahan Islam (Mohammed's wife) and Rahit Islam (Tajleena's brother) denied the allegations and counterclaimed.
- •Multiple trust documents and property transfers were at the heart of the dispute, with differing claims about beneficial ownership.
- •The court considered evidence of forgery, undue influence, and sham transactions.
- •Expert evidence on handwriting analysis played a crucial role in determining forgery claims.
Legal Principles
Sham transaction
Snook v London & West Riding Investments Ltd [1967] 2 QB 786, Hitch v Stone [2001] EWCA Civ 63, Shalson v Russo [2003] EWHC 1637, A v A v St George’s Trustees [2007] EWHC 99 (Fam), Patel v Mirza [2016] UKSC 42
Undue influence
Royal Bank of Scotland Plc v Etridge (No.2) [2002] 2 AC 773
Expert evidence in civil cases
Kennedy v Cordia (Services) LLP [2016] UKSC 6, [2016] 1 WLR 597, Kingsley Developments Ltd v Brudenell [2016] EWCA Civ 980
Outcomes
Allegations of sham transactions were rejected.
The court found no common intention among all parties to mislead regarding the true ownership of the properties.
The 2008 Fellows Court Transfer was deemed invalid due to forgery.
The court considered expert evidence and Tajleena's lack of presence in the UK at the time of signing the document.
Allegations of undue influence regarding the August 2006 Deed failed.
The court found Tajleena understood the document and was not unduly influenced.
Allegations of undue influence concerning the 2016 Deeds failed.
The court found Tajleena signed willingly, although she may have misjudged its effect and believed she would still inherit the properties.
The 2017 TR1s were set aside due to undue influence.
The court found Tajleena signed the documents based on her trust in her father without fully understanding their effect; this constituted undue influence.