Islam v Islam & Ors [2024] EWHC 1082 (Ch) (08 May 2024)

Islam v Islam & Ors [2024] EWHC 1082 (Ch) (08 May 2024)

The court found that Tajleena Islam did not contribute financially to the properties, that most declarations of trust and transfers were shams to conceal Mohammed's assets from creditors, and that Sultana and Rahit may rely on the sham to defeat Tajleena's claim. Expert evidence established forgery on several documents, but even if undue influence or forgery were proven, Tajleena had no beneficial interest. The counterclaim succeeds in part, and Tajleena's claim fails.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 1082 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Tajleena Islam; First Defendant: Sultana Jahan Islam; Second Defendant: Rahit Islam; Third Defendant: Sayed Zaynal Abedin
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 May 2024
Procedural Posture
Chancery Division Property/trust Dispute / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed; counterclaim succeeds in part
Legal Topics
Undue Influence, Forgery, Sham Trusts, Beneficial Ownership, Declarations of Trust, Counterclaim, Expert Evidence
Property Law Trusts Equity Civil Procedure Undue Influence Forgery Sham Trusts Beneficial Ownership +3 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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tajleena Islam

Claimant

Sultana Jahan Islam

First Defendant

Rahit Islam

Second Defendant

Sayed Zaynal Abedin

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Chancery Division Property/trust Dispute / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Tajleena Islam's signatures on property documents were forged
  2. 2 Whether the August 2006 Deed and subsequent trust/transfer documents were procured by undue influence
  3. 3 Whether declarations of trust and property transfers were shams to conceal assets from creditors

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Tajleena Islam did not contribute financially to the properties, that most declarations of trust and transfers were shams to conceal Mohammed's assets from creditors, and that Sultana and Rahit may rely on the sham to defeat Tajleena's claim. Expert evidence established forgery on several documents, but even if undue influence or forgery were proven, Tajleena had no beneficial interest. The counterclaim succeeds in part, and Tajleena's claim fails.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; counterclaim succeeds in part

Orders

  • Declarations that Louise Road, Litchfield Avenue, Cann Hall Road and the Billericay land are owned by Sultana Jahan Islam
  • Declarations that Fellows Court and Skiers Street are owned by Rahit Islam