Bhatia v Purkiss & Anor [2025] EWHC 359 (Ch) (26 February 2025)

Bhatia v Purkiss & Anor [2025] EWHC 359 (Ch) (26 February 2025)

The claimant failed to provide convincing proof that there was a common intention between Suman and Deepak Bhatia that Suman would be the sole beneficial owner of the property. The evidence did not establish an outward expression of accord or a prior concluded agreement to that effect. The TR1 form, as executed, reflected the legal and beneficial joint ownership, and there was no mistake warranting rectification. Accordingly, the claim for rectification was dismissed, and the court ordered the sale of the property to enforce the charging order.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 359 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Mrs Suman Bhatia; First Defendant: Mr Christopher Purkiss (as liquidator of JD Group Ltd); Second Defendant: Mr Deepak Bhatia
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 February 2025
Procedural Posture
Chancery Division Property, Trusts and Probate / Post Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim for rectification dismissed; order for sale granted.
Legal Topics
Rectification of Deeds, Beneficial Ownership, Charging Orders, Order for Sale, Common Intention Trusts, Fraudulent Trading, Misfeasance
Equity Property Law Trusts Insolvency Rectification of Deeds Beneficial Ownership Charging Orders Order for Sale +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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Suman Bhatia

Claimant

Mr Christopher Purkiss (as liquidator of JD Group Ltd)

First Defendant

Mr Deepak Bhatia

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Chancery Division Property, Trusts and Probate / Post Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the TR1 transfer deed should be rectified to reflect sole beneficial ownership by Suman Bhatia
  2. 2 Whether there was a common intention or agreement between Suman and Deepak Bhatia regarding beneficial ownership
  3. 3 Whether the declaration of trust in the TR1 was completed by mistake

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to provide convincing proof that there was a common intention between Suman and Deepak Bhatia that Suman would be the sole beneficial owner of the property. The evidence did not establish an outward expression of accord or a prior concluded agreement to that effect. The TR1 form, as executed, reflected the legal and beneficial joint ownership, and there was no mistake warranting rectification. Accordingly, the claim for rectification was dismissed, and the court ordered the sale of the property to enforce the charging order.

Court Disposition

Claim for rectification dismissed; order for sale granted.

Orders

  • Claim for rectification of TR1 dismissed.
  • Order for sale of 33A The Drive, Uxbridge UB10 8AF granted to enforce the charging order.