Abbas v Hussain & Ors [2023] EWHC 2322 (Ch) (19 September 2023)

Abbas v Hussain & Ors [2023] EWHC 2322 (Ch) (19 September 2023)

The court found that the claimant failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that he paid the sums required under the 2015 oral agreement to acquire the beneficial interest in the disputed property. The evidence of cash payments was inconsistent, unsupported by contemporaneous documentation, and not corroborated by reliable witnesses. The court preferred the defendants' version that the claimant only paid £5,000 and did not exercise any option to acquire the property. Accordingly, no constructive trust arose in favour of the claimant over the disputed land.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 2322 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Mr Aslam Abbas; First Defendant: Mr Shabir Hussain; Second Defendant: Tilt Hammer Ltd; Third Defendant: Henshaw Estates Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 September 2023
Procedural Posture
Chancery Division Business and Property Courts / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Constructive Trusts, Beneficial Ownership, Oral Agreements, Family Property Disputes, Clean Hands Doctrine
Equity Property Law Trusts Constructive Trusts Beneficial Ownership Oral Agreements Family Property Disputes Clean Hands Doctrine

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Aslam Abbas

Claimant

Mr Shabir Hussain

First Defendant

Tilt Hammer Ltd

Second Defendant

Henshaw Estates Ltd

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Chancery Division Business and Property Courts / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a constructive trust arose in favour of the claimant over the disputed property (western half of Tilt Hammer) based on the 2015 oral agreement and alleged payments.
  2. 2 Whether the claimant paid the sums required under the alleged agreement to acquire the beneficial interest in the disputed property.
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's conduct (including alleged incitement of violence) disentitles him to equitable relief under the clean hands doctrine.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the claimant failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that he paid the sums required under the 2015 oral agreement to acquire the beneficial interest in the disputed property. The evidence of cash payments was inconsistent, unsupported by contemporaneous documentation, and not corroborated by reliable witnesses. The court preferred the defendants' version that the claimant only paid £5,000 and did not exercise any option to acquire the property. Accordingly, no constructive trust arose in favour of the claimant over the disputed land.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • The claimant's claim for a declaration of beneficial ownership and registration of the disputed property is dismissed.
  • No order for transfer of the disputed property to the claimant.