Changizi v Changizi & Ors [2021] EWHC 1659 (Ch) (18 June 2021)

Changizi v Changizi & Ors [2021] EWHC 1659 (Ch) (18 June 2021)

The claimant's allegations, even if true, could not in law give rise to a proprietary interest in the property; there was no evidence that Lara held any monies on trust for the estate or that the estate had a constructive trust or equitable lien over the property; the claim was speculative, lacked factual underpinning, and disclosed no reasonable grounds for proceeding.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 1659 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Sharas Alexander Changizi; First Defendant: Lara Marie Changizi; Second Defendant (executor of the Estate of Parviz Changizi): Robin Donald Mayes; Third Defendant (executor of the Estate of Parviz Changizi): Pamela Kathleen Changizi
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 June 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil (property/probate) / Summary Judgment Application (cpr Part 24) and Strike Out Application (cpr R. 3.4)
Outcome
Claim dismissed (summary judgment granted for the Executors)
Legal Topics
Constructive Trust, Equitable Lien, Derivative Claim by Beneficiary, Summary Judgment, Strike Out, Restitution, Inheritance Tax Liability, Breach of Trust, Fiduciary Duty
Trusts and Estates Property Law Civil Procedure Constructive Trust Equitable Lien Derivative Claim by Beneficiary Summary Judgment Strike Out +4 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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sharas Alexander Changizi

Claimant

Lara Marie Changizi

First Defendant

Robin Donald Mayes

Second Defendant (executor of the Estate of Parviz Changizi)

Pamela Kathleen Changizi

Third Defendant (executor of the Estate of Parviz Changizi)

Procedural Posture

Civil (property/probate) / Summary Judgment Application (cpr Part 24) and Strike Out Application (cpr R. 3.4)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant beneficiary can assert a proprietary interest in estate property based on alleged obligations owed by another beneficiary to the estate
  2. 2 Whether the claim discloses reasonable grounds or has real prospects of success
  3. 3 Whether the executors have standing to seek summary dismissal or strike out

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's allegations, even if true, could not in law give rise to a proprietary interest in the property; there was no evidence that Lara held any monies on trust for the estate or that the estate had a constructive trust or equitable lien over the property; the claim was speculative, lacked factual underpinning, and disclosed no reasonable grounds for proceeding.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed (summary judgment granted for the Executors)

Orders

  • Claim dismissed in full
  • Application for summary judgment/strike out granted