Pathania v Tashie-Lewis & Anor

Pathania v Tashie-Lewis & Anor

The claimant failed to discharge the burden of proof that the sale was at an undervalue in respect of the £38,000 advanced by Mahmoud Properties. There was no documentary evidence linking D1 to the payment or repayment, and the circumstances and unreliable witness testimony were insufficient to tip the evidential burden in claimant's favour.

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
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Transaction at Undervalue, Section 423 Insolvency Act 1986, Limitation Period, Burden of Proof
Insolvency Property Law Transaction at Undervalue Section 423 Insolvency Act 1986 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 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rajesh Kumar Singh Pathania

Claimant

Collins Dominic Tashie-Lewis

First Defendant

Mohammed Zia Uddin Rasel

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did D1 enter into the sale of No 36 South Street to D2 with the purpose of putting the asset beyond the reach of someone who might make a claim against him, and/or for the purpose of prejudicing the position of such a person?
  2. 2 Is C a victim as defined in section 423(5) as being someone potentially prejudiced by the transaction?
  3. 3 Was the sale in fact at an undervalue as to the extent of the monies paid towards the sale by Mahmoud Properties?

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to discharge the burden of proof that the sale was at an undervalue in respect of the £38,000 advanced by Mahmoud Properties. There was no documentary evidence linking D1 to the payment or repayment, and the circumstances and unreliable witness testimony were insufficient to tip the evidential burden in claimant's favour.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed