Santokh Singh Bains v Nadira Siraj Irshad & Anor

Santokh Singh Bains v Nadira Siraj Irshad & Anor

The claimant was not entitled to any share of the proceeds from the sale of the Brentwood Hotel or Stockland Street property. The court found that the claimant and first defendant were partners at will until 2011, when the claimant was bought out through refinancing and payment. There was no express or implied trust, no proprietary estoppel, and no constructive trust in the claimant's favour after 2011. The claimant's evidence was found to be dishonest, including fabrication of the existence of 'Aamer Gull'. Even if the claims had merit, the claimant would have been barred from equitable relief by the clean hands doctrine due to extensive dishonesty.

Parties
Claimant: Santokh Singh Bains; First Defendant: Nadira Siraj Irshad; Second Defendant: Curdworth Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 July 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Resulting Trusts, Constructive Trusts, Proprietary Estoppel, Partnership Dissolution, Tracing, Unlawful Means Conspiracy, Illegality, Clean Hands Doctrine
Equity Property Law Partnership Law Trusts Resulting Trusts Constructive Trusts Proprietary Estoppel Partnership Dissolution +4 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 8 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Santokh Singh Bains

Claimant

Nadira Siraj Irshad

First Defendant

Curdworth Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was entitled to a share of the proceeds from the sale of the Brentwood Hotel and Stockland Street property
  2. 2 Whether there was a partnership at will between the claimant and first defendant and its terms
  3. 3 Whether the claimant had a beneficial interest in the properties by way of resulting trust, constructive trust, or proprietary estoppel

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant was not entitled to any share of the proceeds from the sale of the Brentwood Hotel or Stockland Street property. The court found that the claimant and first defendant were partners at will until 2011, when the claimant was bought out through refinancing and payment. There was no express or implied trust, no proprietary estoppel, and no constructive trust in the claimant's favour after 2011. The claimant's evidence was found to be dishonest, including fabrication of the existence of 'Aamer Gull'. Even if the claims had merit, the claimant would have been barred from equitable relief by the clean hands doctrine due to extensive dishonesty.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • All claims by the claimant are dismissed in their entirety.
  • The judge proposes to send the papers to the Director of Public Prosecutions due to findings of dishonesty.