Saeed & Anor v Ibrahim & Ors

Saeed & Anor v Ibrahim & Ors

The court found that C1 and D1 made the 2005 agreement to transfer and hold assets on trust, that D1 received and held substantial sums and property as trustee for Cs, and that the property transfers were shams effected to defraud C2. D1 is liable to account for the transferred sums, proceeds, and rents. The defence of illegality does not bar recovery as both C1 and D1 were equally culpable and denial of relief would be disproportionate. Limitation does not bar the claims due to deliberate concealment and the nature of the trusts.

Parties
Claimant: Mohammad Saeed; Claimant: Yasmeen Saeed; Defendant: Mohamed Ibrahim; Defendant: Naheeda Khan; Defendant: Moeednuddin Ibrahim; Defendant: Sadeka Ibrahim; Defendant: Hisamuddin Ibrahim
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 August 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Property/trusts / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim allowed in part; D1 declared trustee and liable to account; D3 and D4 declared bare trustees; limitation and illegality defences rejected; claim against D2 discontinued.
Legal Topics
Resulting Trusts, Constructive Trusts, Breach of Trust, Illegality Defence, Limitation, Fraud, Forgery, Knowing Receipt
Trusts Property Law Equity Restitution Resulting Trusts Constructive Trusts Breach of Trust Illegality Defence +4 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 6 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohammad Saeed

Claimant

Yasmeen Saeed

Claimant

Mohamed Ibrahim

Defendant

Naheeda Khan

Defendant

Moeednuddin Ibrahim

Defendant

Sadeka Ibrahim

Defendant

Hisamuddin Ibrahim

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Property/trusts / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an oral agreement (the 2005 agreement) was made between C1 and D1 to transfer and hold property and funds on trust
  2. 2 Whether sums transferred by C1 to D1 were proceeds of jointly owned property and in breach of trust
  3. 3 Whether various property transfers (37 Lansdown Road, 349 Ripple Road, 3 Victoria Road) were sham transactions and held on trust for Cs

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that C1 and D1 made the 2005 agreement to transfer and hold assets on trust, that D1 received and held substantial sums and property as trustee for Cs, and that the property transfers were shams effected to defraud C2. D1 is liable to account for the transferred sums, proceeds, and rents. The defence of illegality does not bar recovery as both C1 and D1 were equally culpable and denial of relief would be disproportionate. Limitation does not bar the claims due to deliberate concealment and the nature of the trusts.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part; D1 declared trustee and liable to account; D3 and D4 declared bare trustees; limitation and illegality defences rejected; claim against D2 discontinued.

Orders

  • D1 to account for transferred sums, proceeds of 349 Ripple Road and 3 Victoria Road, and rental income.
  • D3 and D4 to account as bare trustees for 37 Lansdown Road and rental income.