Ghassemian v Tigris Industries Inc [2014] EWHC 3362 (Ch) (15 October 2014)

Ghassemian v Tigris Industries Inc [2014] EWHC 3362 (Ch) (15 October 2014)

The appeal was allowed because the Master failed to sufficiently address evidence (specifically, the record in a prior judgment of a letter from Mills-Thomas solicitors in 1986) that could support the authenticity of the Declaration of Trust, and thus the evaluative conclusion that the Declaration was not genuine was not lawfully open to him on the evidence before him.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 3362 (Ch)
Parties
Appellant and Defendant: Hamila Ghassemian (also known as Hamila Sartipy); Respondent and Claimant: Tigris Industries Inc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Appeal (chancery Division, Part 8 Claim) / Appeal From Order Enforcing Charging Order and Ordering Sale of Property
Outcome
Appeal allowed; case remitted for trial with oral evidence before a Master.
Legal Topics
Charging Orders, Declaration of Trust, Burden of Proof, Admissibility of Evidence, Appeals Procedure
Civil Procedure Property Law Trusts and Equity Charging Orders Declaration of Trust Burden of Proof Admissibility of Evidence Appeals Procedure

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hamila Ghassemian (also known as Hamila Sartipy)

Appellant and Defendant

Tigris Industries Inc

Respondent and Claimant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (chancery Division, Part 8 Claim) / Appeal From Order Enforcing Charging Order and Ordering Sale of Property

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Master erred in law in placing the burden of proof on Mrs Sartipy regarding the Declaration of Trust
  2. 2 Whether the Master erred in finding the Declaration of Trust was not genuine or was a sham
  3. 3 Whether the Master's evaluative findings were lawfully open to him on the evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the Master failed to sufficiently address evidence (specifically, the record in a prior judgment of a letter from Mills-Thomas solicitors in 1986) that could support the authenticity of the Declaration of Trust, and thus the evaluative conclusion that the Declaration was not genuine was not lawfully open to him on the evidence before him.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; case remitted for trial with oral evidence before a Master.

Orders

  • The issue of the authenticity of the Declaration of Trust is remitted for trial before a Master with oral evidence.
  • No order as to costs on the appeal, subject to further submissions if parties wish to apply.