Ahmed v Ahmed & Ors [2002] EWCA Civ 709 (29 April 2002)

Ahmed v Ahmed & Ors [2002] EWCA Civ 709 (29 April 2002)

The leases to D5 and D9 were shams as all parties shared the intention that the documents would not create genuine legal rights; D5 and D9 were not purchasers for value in good faith without notice, and the judge's findings of fact were unassailable.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 709
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Asrar Ahmed; Defendant/appellant: Surriya Hasan Ahmed; Defendant/appellant: Jawaid Ahmed; Defendant/appellant: Eric Anthur Goodchild; Defendant/appellant: Kamran Jawaid Ahmed; Defendant/appellant: Shahzad Zafar Ahmed; Defendant/appellant: Sumaira Ahmed; Defendant/appellant: Thomas Byron Morgan; Defendant/appellant: Philip John Lowe; Defendant/appellant: Shahnilla Zainub Gulnar Ahmed Shamsi; Defendant/appellant: Tasweer Fatima Ahmed
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 April 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal and for Stay of Execution
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Sham Transactions, Fiduciary Duty, Leases, Trusts, Good Faith Purchasers
Property Law Equity and Trusts Sham Transactions Fiduciary Duty Leases Trusts Good Faith Purchasers

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Asrar Ahmed

Claimant/respondent

Surriya Hasan Ahmed

Defendant/appellant

Jawaid Ahmed

Defendant/appellant

Eric Anthur Goodchild

Defendant/appellant

Kamran Jawaid Ahmed

Defendant/appellant

Shahzad Zafar Ahmed

Defendant/appellant

Sumaira Ahmed

Defendant/appellant

Thomas Byron Morgan

Defendant/appellant

Philip John Lowe

Defendant/appellant

Shahnilla Zainub Gulnar Ahmed Shamsi

Defendant/appellant

Tasweer Fatima Ahmed

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal and for Stay of Execution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the leases granted to D5 and D9 were shams and unenforceable
  2. 2 Whether D5 and D9 were purchasers for value in good faith without notice of breaches of fiduciary duty

Ratio Decidendi

The leases to D5 and D9 were shams as all parties shared the intention that the documents would not create genuine legal rights; D5 and D9 were not purchasers for value in good faith without notice, and the judge's findings of fact were unassailable.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal dismissed
  • No order for costs