Kastner v Jason & Ors [2004] EWHC 592 (Ch) (23 March 2004)

Kastner v Jason & Ors [2004] EWHC 592 (Ch) (23 March 2004)

Neither the Beth Din's freezing direction nor its award created any proprietary interest, lien, or charge over Mr Jason's property in favour of Mr Kastner under English or Jewish law, as the sale to the Shermans occurred before the award. The caution was wrongly registered and did not protect any interest. The Shermans are entitled to registration as proprietors free from any charge or lien, and the interim charging order must be discharged.

Citation
[2004] EWHC 592 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant (kastner Action), Defendant (sherman Action): Ernst Kastner; Defendant (kastner Action): Marc Jason; Defendant (kastner Action), Claimant (sherman Action): Davis Sherman; Defendant (kastner Action), Claimant (sherman Action): Brigitte Sherman
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 March 2004
Procedural Posture
Chancery Division, High Court, Consolidated Trial of Two Actions (kastner V Jason & Sherman; Sherman V Kastner) / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
For the Shermans in the Sherman action; against Kastner in the Kastner action.
Legal Topics
Effect of Arbitral Awards, Freezing Orders, Proprietary Interests, Registration of Cautions, Jewish Law Arbitration, Fraud, Lien and Charge Creation
Property Law Arbitration Equity and Trusts Effect of Arbitral Awards Freezing Orders Proprietary Interests Registration of Cautions Jewish Law Arbitration +2 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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ernst Kastner

Claimant (kastner Action), Defendant (sherman Action)

Marc Jason

Defendant (kastner Action)

Davis Sherman

Defendant (kastner Action), Claimant (sherman Action)

Brigitte Sherman

Defendant (kastner Action), Claimant (sherman Action)

Procedural Posture

Chancery Division, High Court, Consolidated Trial of Two Actions (kastner V Jason & Sherman; Sherman V Kastner) / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a Beth Din freezing direction or award creates a proprietary lien or charge over property under English or Jewish law
  2. 2 Whether such a lien or charge binds third party purchasers (Shermans)
  3. 3 Effect of registration of a caution based on a freezing direction

Ratio Decidendi

Neither the Beth Din's freezing direction nor its award created any proprietary interest, lien, or charge over Mr Jason's property in favour of Mr Kastner under English or Jewish law, as the sale to the Shermans occurred before the award. The caution was wrongly registered and did not protect any interest. The Shermans are entitled to registration as proprietors free from any charge or lien, and the interim charging order must be discharged.

Court Disposition

For the Shermans in the Sherman action; against Kastner in the Kastner action.

Orders

  • Declaration that Mr and Mrs Sherman are entitled to registration as proprietors of the property free from any charge or lien in favour of Mr Kastner.
  • Order for vacation of the caution.