Zarbafi v Zarbafi & Ors

Zarbafi v Zarbafi & Ors

The appeal against the First Order is allowed because Golnar Zarbafi was in a position of manifest conflict of interest and could not properly act as litigation friend for Mahmood Zarbafi; the summary judgment was inappropriate as there were triable issues regarding sham and laches. The appeal against the Second Order is allowed in part; the injunctions are to be continued except for the prohibition on marketing Eaton Square, which is to be lifted to allow marketing subject to contract.

Parties
Appellant/defendant: Arsalan Zarbafi; Respondent/first Claimant: Golnar Zarbafi; Respondent/second Claimant (protected Party): Mahmood Zarbafi
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment and Injunction Orders
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Beneficial Ownership, Trust Deeds, Litigation Friend Conflict, Injunctions, Sham Trusts, Laches
Civil Procedure Trusts and Equity Summary Judgment Beneficial Ownership Trust Deeds Litigation Friend Conflict Injunctions Sham Trusts +1 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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Arsalan Zarbafi

Appellant/defendant

Golnar Zarbafi

Respondent/first Claimant

Mahmood Zarbafi

Respondent/second Claimant (protected Party)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment and Injunction Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether summary judgment was appropriate on the issue of beneficial ownership of properties given the existence of triable issues including sham and laches
  2. 2 Whether Golnar Zarbafi could properly act as litigation friend for Mahmood Zarbafi in light of a conflict of interest
  3. 3 Whether the continuation of injunctions against Arsalan Zarbafi was justified

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal against the First Order is allowed because Golnar Zarbafi was in a position of manifest conflict of interest and could not properly act as litigation friend for Mahmood Zarbafi; the summary judgment was inappropriate as there were triable issues regarding sham and laches. The appeal against the Second Order is allowed in part; the injunctions are to be continued except for the prohibition on marketing Eaton Square, which is to be lifted to allow marketing subject to contract.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • First Order (summary judgment on beneficial ownership) set aside; issue to be determined at trial
  • Golnar Zarbafi removed as litigation friend for Mahmood Zarbafi