Tohidi v Estridge [2022] EWHC 1237 (Ch) (26 May 2022)

Tohidi v Estridge [2022] EWHC 1237 (Ch) (26 May 2022)

The judge was entitled to find, on the evidence, that the only agreement reached in 2008 was for the transfer of management and receipt of rents, not beneficial ownership, and that the 5 August Letter did not evidence a transfer of beneficial interest. The new evidence did not meet the threshold to reopen the judgment.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 1237 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Mr Iraj Tohidi; Defendant/appellant: Mr David Estridge
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Chancery Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment and Post Judgment Application
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; permission to appeal granted on certain grounds but no relief granted.
Legal Topics
Beneficial Ownership, Trusts, Self Dealing Rule, Fair Dealing Rule, LPA 1925 S.53, Appeal Procedure, Reopening Judgments, Admissibility of Fresh Evidence
Equity and Trusts Property Law Civil Procedure Beneficial Ownership Trusts Self Dealing Rule Fair Dealing Rule LPA 1925 S.53 +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Iraj Tohidi

Claimant/respondent

Mr David Estridge

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Chancery Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment and Post Judgment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was the beneficial owner of properties held in the defendant's name
  2. 2 Whether alleged agreements in 2005 and 2008 transferred beneficial ownership
  3. 3 Whether the 5 August 2008 letter was signed by the claimant and its legal effect

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was entitled to find, on the evidence, that the only agreement reached in 2008 was for the transfer of management and receipt of rents, not beneficial ownership, and that the 5 August Letter did not evidence a transfer of beneficial interest. The new evidence did not meet the threshold to reopen the judgment.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; permission to appeal granted on certain grounds but no relief granted.