Salfiti v Seedo & Ors [2022] EWHC 1712 (Ch) (24 June 2022)

Salfiti v Seedo & Ors [2022] EWHC 1712 (Ch) (24 June 2022)

The judge's findings of fact regarding the Trust Deed, Mr Salfiti's dishonesty, and breaches of duty were rationally supportable and not plainly wrong; limitation was properly extended due to fraudulent concealment; appeal dismissed.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 1712 (Ch)
Parties
Appellant/third Defendant: Amjad Salfiti; Respondent/claimant: Saddiq Omar Abu Seedo; Respondent/first Defendant: Fahmy El Gamal; Respondent/second Defendant: El Gamal & Co Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Chancery Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Express Trust, Resulting Trust, Constructive Trust, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Breach of Contract, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Limitation Period, Indemnity
Trusts Property Contract Tort Fraud Express Trust Resulting Trust Constructive Trust +5 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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Amjad Salfiti

Appellant/third Defendant

Saddiq Omar Abu Seedo

Respondent/claimant

Fahmy El Gamal

Respondent/first Defendant

El Gamal & Co Limited

Respondent/second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Chancery Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Trust Deed was valid and signed by Mr El Gamal
  2. 2 Whether Mr Salfiti acted in breach of trust, fiduciary duty, and contract
  3. 3 Whether claims against Mr Salfiti were time barred

Ratio Decidendi

The judge's findings of fact regarding the Trust Deed, Mr Salfiti's dishonesty, and breaches of duty were rationally supportable and not plainly wrong; limitation was properly extended due to fraudulent concealment; appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No permission granted for additional ground of appeal
  • Original County Court order stands