Mohammed Khalid Raja & Anor v ATM Law & Ors

Mohammed Khalid Raja & Anor v ATM Law & Ors

The Rajas failed to prove that the Trust Deed was genuine or executed on the date claimed. The court found the Deed was created after the interim charging order to defeat the judgment creditor's claim. Therefore, the First Claimant retained a beneficial interest in the property at the relevant time.

Parties
First Claimant: Mohammed Khalid Raja; Second Claimant: Saira Zeenat Raja; First Defendant: ATM Law; Second Defendant: Abyez Ahmed; Third Defendant: Mohammad Ghazanfar; Fourth Defendant: The Yorkshire Building Society
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 August 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Property/trusts / Trial of Preliminary Issues
Outcome
Claimants failed on the preliminary issues; First Claimant did not divest his beneficial interest as alleged.
Legal Topics
Beneficial Ownership, Charging Order, Trust Deed Validity, Bankruptcy Disclaimer
Property Law Trusts Bankruptcy Beneficial Ownership Charging Order Trust Deed Validity Bankruptcy Disclaimer

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohammed Khalid Raja

First Claimant

Saira Zeenat Raja

Second Claimant

ATM Law

First Defendant

Abyez Ahmed

Second Defendant

Mohammad Ghazanfar

Third Defendant

The Yorkshire Building Society

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Property/trusts / Trial of Preliminary Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the First Claimant ceased to have any beneficial interest in 45 Morrab Gardens under the Trust Deed dated 14 March 2008
  2. 2 Whether the property was thereafter held on trust for the Second Claimant and others
  3. 3 Effect of the bankruptcy order and subsequent disclaimers on the Second Claimant's interest

Ratio Decidendi

The Rajas failed to prove that the Trust Deed was genuine or executed on the date claimed. The court found the Deed was created after the interim charging order to defeat the judgment creditor's claim. Therefore, the First Claimant retained a beneficial interest in the property at the relevant time.

Court Disposition

Claimants failed on the preliminary issues; First Claimant did not divest his beneficial interest as alleged.