Ahmed & Ors v Khan

Ahmed & Ors v Khan

The judge was entitled to refuse to strike out the wife's claims as the pleadings disclosed a reasonable cause of action for constructive trusts, and the judge applied the correct legal test. The overriding objective was properly considered, and the application for permission to appeal did not raise issues warranting appellate intervention.

Parties
Applicant/wife: Kulsum Khan; Respondent/husband: Muhammed Habeebuddin Ahmed; Applicant/2nd Respondent: Noor Misbahuddin; Applicant/3rd Respondent: Sameena Misbahuddin; Applicant/4th Respondent: Heat & Eat Properties Limited; Applicant/5th Respondent: Farah Baig
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 March 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (strike Out)
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Constructive Trusts, Matrimonial Property, Strike Out Applications, Overriding Objective
Family Law Trusts and Equity Civil Procedure Constructive Trusts Matrimonial Property Strike Out Applications Overriding Objective

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kulsum Khan

Applicant/wife

Muhammed Habeebuddin Ahmed

Respondent/husband

Noor Misbahuddin

Applicant/2nd Respondent

Sameena Misbahuddin

Applicant/3rd Respondent

Heat & Eat Properties Limited

Applicant/4th Respondent

Farah Baig

Applicant/5th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (strike Out)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the wife's pleadings disclose a reasonable cause of action for assets held on constructive trust for the husband
  2. 2 Whether the judge applied the correct legal test in refusing to strike out the wife's claims
  3. 3 Whether the judge's approach to the pleadings and the overriding objective was proper

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was entitled to refuse to strike out the wife's claims as the pleadings disclosed a reasonable cause of action for constructive trusts, and the judge applied the correct legal test. The overriding objective was properly considered, and the application for permission to appeal did not raise issues warranting appellate intervention.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Applications for permission to appeal refused
  • No strike out of the wife's claims as pleaded