Islam & Anor v Al-Sami & Anor [2011] EWCA Civ 32 (03 February 2011)

Islam & Anor v Al-Sami & Anor [2011] EWCA Civ 32 (03 February 2011)

The appellant failed to establish any indebtedness from Mrs Begum to himself, and the loan agreement could not be construed as securing anything other than a specific loan of £200,000, which was never made or contemplated. The supporting documents relied on by the appellant were found to be forgeries or otherwise unauthentic. The charge was therefore of no effect and the appeal was dismissed.

Citation
[2011] EWCA Civ 32
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Moynun Islam; Claimant/respondent: Minera Khatun Islam; First Defendant/appellant: Shahjahan Hossain Mohammad Al-Sami; Second Defendant: Salma Begum
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 February 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Equitable Charges, Loan Agreements, Forgery, Priority of Charges, Construction of Contracts
Property Law Equity Civil Procedure Equitable Charges Loan Agreements Forgery Priority of Charges Construction of Contracts

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Moynun Islam

Claimant/respondent

Minera Khatun Islam

Claimant/respondent

Shahjahan Hossain Mohammad Al-Sami

First Defendant/appellant

Salma Begum

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the loan agreement between the appellant and Mrs Begum was effective and created an enforceable equitable charge
  2. 2 Whether any indebtedness existed from Mrs Begum to the appellant secured by the charge
  3. 3 Whether the loan agreement and supporting documents were forgeries or delusive

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant failed to establish any indebtedness from Mrs Begum to himself, and the loan agreement could not be construed as securing anything other than a specific loan of £200,000, which was never made or contemplated. The supporting documents relied on by the appellant were found to be forgeries or otherwise unauthentic. The charge was therefore of no effect and the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The purported loan agreement and equitable charge are of no effect.
  • Mrs Begum is not indebted to the appellant.