IRAJ TOHIDI v DAVID ESTRIDGE

IRAJ TOHIDI v DAVID ESTRIDGE

The judge was entitled to find, based on the totality of the evidence, that the only agreement reached in 2008 was for the transfer of management and receipt of rents, not beneficial ownership. The 5 August Letter did not evidence a valid transfer, and even if it had, it would have been void or voidable. The new evidence did not meet the threshold to re-open the judgment. There was no error of law or principle warranting appellate intervention.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Mr Iraj Tohidi; Defendant/appellant: Mr David Estridge
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Judgment on Permission and Merits
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; permission to appeal granted on limited grounds but not allowed.
Legal Topics
Beneficial Ownership, Trustee Duties, Self Dealing Rule, Disclosure Obligations, Appeal Standards, Admissibility of Fresh Evidence
Trusts Property Law Civil Procedure Beneficial Ownership Trustee Duties Self Dealing Rule Disclosure Obligations Appeal Standards +1 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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Iraj Tohidi

Claimant/respondent

Mr David Estridge

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Judgment on Permission and Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was the beneficial owner of properties held in the defendant's name
  2. 2 Whether agreements in 2005 and 2008 transferred beneficial interest to the defendant
  3. 3 Whether the 5 August 2008 Letter evidenced a valid transfer of beneficial interest

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was entitled to find, based on the totality of the evidence, that the only agreement reached in 2008 was for the transfer of management and receipt of rents, not beneficial ownership. The 5 August Letter did not evidence a valid transfer, and even if it had, it would have been void or voidable. The new evidence did not meet the threshold to re-open the judgment. There was no error of law or principle warranting appellate intervention.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; permission to appeal granted on limited grounds but not allowed.

Orders

  • Permission to appeal refused on Grounds 2, 3, 4, and 5.
  • Permission to appeal granted on Grounds 1, 6, 7, and 8 but appeal dismissed on all grounds.