Bhusate v Patel & Ors

Bhusate v Patel & Ors

The claimant and 6th defendant’s claims to a beneficial interest in the property fail as a matter of law and fact: the estate remains unadministered, no appropriation or assent occurred, the rule against self-dealing applies, and there is no factual or legal basis for a resulting or constructive trust or proprietary estoppel. The claimant’s claim for statutory legacy and capitalised life interest is statute barred. The 6th defendant cannot maintain a counterclaim inconsistent with his admissions. The administrators have failed in their duties and should be removed.

Parties
Claimant: Mrs Shanatabi Kashinath Bhusate; 1st Defendant: Dr Managala Patel; 2nd Defendant: Mrs Jeeja Thakare; 3rd Defendant: Mrs Ulka Parmar; 4th Defendant: Dr Ravindra Bhusate; 5th Defendant: Dr Lekha Herbert; 6th Defendant and Part 20 Claimant: Dr Arvind Bhusate
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 September 2018
Procedural Posture
Probate/trusts – Estate Administration and Inheritance Act Claim / Application for Strike Out And/or Summary Judgment; Interlocutory Judgment
Outcome
Claimant’s and 6th defendant’s claims (except Inheritance Act extension application) struck out or dismissed; administrators removed; professional administrator appointed; application to set aside Mr Bhusate’s assent in Mrs Bhusate’s estate dismissed.
Legal Topics
Intestacy, Constructive Trusts, Resulting Trusts, Proprietary Estoppel, Administration of Estates, Limitation Periods, Self Dealing Rule, Removal of Administrators
Probate Trusts Civil Procedure Intestacy Constructive Trusts Resulting Trusts Proprietary Estoppel Administration of Estates +3 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 5 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Shanatabi Kashinath Bhusate

Claimant

Dr Managala Patel

1st Defendant

Mrs Jeeja Thakare

2nd Defendant

Mrs Ulka Parmar

3rd Defendant

Dr Ravindra Bhusate

4th Defendant

Dr Lekha Herbert

5th Defendant

Dr Arvind Bhusate

6th Defendant and Part 20 Claimant

Procedural Posture

Probate/trusts – Estate Administration and Inheritance Act Claim / Application for Strike Out And/or Summary Judgment; Interlocutory Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant or 6th defendant have a beneficial interest in the property under resulting or constructive trust or proprietary estoppel
  2. 2 Whether the claimant’s entitlement to statutory legacy and capitalised life interest is statute barred
  3. 3 Whether the claimant and 1st defendant should be removed as administrators under section 50 Administration of Justice Act 1985

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant and 6th defendant’s claims to a beneficial interest in the property fail as a matter of law and fact: the estate remains unadministered, no appropriation or assent occurred, the rule against self-dealing applies, and there is no factual or legal basis for a resulting or constructive trust or proprietary estoppel. The claimant’s claim for statutory legacy and capitalised life interest is statute barred. The 6th defendant cannot maintain a counterclaim inconsistent with his admissions. The administrators have failed in their duties and should be removed.

Court Disposition

Claimant’s and 6th defendant’s claims (except Inheritance Act extension application) struck out or dismissed; administrators removed; professional administrator appointed; application to set aside Mr Bhusate’s assent in Mrs Bhusate’s estate dismissed.

Orders

  • Claimant’s claims to beneficial interest in property struck out or dismissed
  • 6th defendant’s counterclaim struck out or dismissed