Pathania v Tashie-Lewis & Anor [2021] EWHC 526 (Ch) (08 March 2021)

Pathania v Tashie-Lewis & Anor [2021] EWHC 526 (Ch) (08 March 2021)

The Claimant failed to discharge the burden of proof that the sale was at an undervalue, as there was no documentary evidence that the £38,000 from Mahmood Properties was paid by or on behalf of the First Defendant or returned to him. The evidence showed the full purchase price was paid to the First Defendant's solicitors, and the circumstances, while suspicious, were insufficient without proof. Therefore, the claim under s.423 failed.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 526 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Rajesh Kumar Singh Pathania; First Defendant: Collins Dominic Tashie-Lewis; Second Defendant: Mohammed Zia Uddin Rasel
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Claim Under S.423 Insolvency Act 1986 / High Court Chancery Division Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Transaction at Undervalue, Fraudulent Conveyance, Limitation Period, Burden of Proof
Insolvency Property Law Civil Procedure Transaction at Undervalue Fraudulent Conveyance Limitation Period Burden of Proof

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rajesh Kumar Singh Pathania

Claimant

Collins Dominic Tashie-Lewis

First Defendant

Mohammed Zia Uddin Rasel

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Claim Under S.423 Insolvency Act 1986 / High Court Chancery Division Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sale of 36 South Street to the Second Defendant was at an undervalue within the meaning of s.423 Insolvency Act 1986
  2. 2 Whether the transaction was entered into to prejudice creditors
  3. 3 Whether the Claimant is a victim under s.423(5)

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimant failed to discharge the burden of proof that the sale was at an undervalue, as there was no documentary evidence that the £38,000 from Mahmood Properties was paid by or on behalf of the First Defendant or returned to him. The evidence showed the full purchase price was paid to the First Defendant's solicitors, and the circumstances, while suspicious, were insufficient without proof. Therefore, the claim under s.423 failed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed