Senel Ahmet v David Tatum & Anor
[2023] EWHC 1492 (Ch)
Ministry Of Justice Of The Kingdom Of The Netherlands v Huseyin Baybasin & Or
13 September 2024
[2024] EWHC 2343 (KB)
High Court
Several brothers fought over who owned a house. A judge already decided one brother (Mehmet) owned a part of it. Another brother (Huseyin) tried to change the decision. The new judge said Huseyin can’t change the earlier decision because it would be unfair to the other brothers and would waste everyone's time.
Key Facts
- •Mesut Baybasin is the registered proprietor of 3 Dukes Avenue, Edgware.
- •The property has been subject to a High Court restraint and management order since April 1998.
- •In 2018, Judge Aubrey made an Enforcement Order in confiscation proceedings against Mehmet Baybasin, declaring Mehmet had a 25% beneficial interest in the property, based on a finding that the four Baybasin brothers were equal beneficial owners.
- •Huseyin Baybasin disputes this, claiming sole beneficial ownership.
- •The preliminary issue before the court is whether issue estoppel/res judicata/collateral attack principles apply to prevent Huseyin from challenging Judge Aubrey's findings.
- •The Baybasin brothers have all been involved in serious criminal activity.
Legal Principles
Abuse of process
Hunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands [1982] AC 529
Res judicata (including cause of action estoppel and issue estoppel)
Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Zodiac Seats UK Ltd [2013] UKSC 46
Collateral attack on a decision of a court of competent jurisdiction
Allsop v Banner Jones Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 7
Issue estoppel
Various case law discussed
Determination of property rights in Crown Court confiscation proceedings
Re Norris [2001] UKHL 34 and Ahmet v Tatum [2024] EWCA Civ 255
Outcomes
Huseyin is estopped from arguing that Mehmet does not have a 25% beneficial interest.
Issue estoppel applies between Huseyin and Mehmet/the Receiver, as the issue was determined in previous proceedings where both were parties. Alternatively, it's an abuse of process to relitigate the issue.
Huseyin is precluded from arguing that Abdullah does not have a 25% beneficial interest.
While no issue estoppel exists between Huseyin and Abdullah (as Abdullah wasn't a party to the prior proceedings), allowing Huseyin to challenge this would constitute an abusive collateral attack on Judge Aubrey's decision. This would be unfair and bring the administration of justice into disrepute.