Karsten v Markham

Karsten v Markham

The Defendant received £1,125,000 from the Claimant as loans, not gifts or payments for services. The trust deeds and acknowledgments were validly executed, not signed in blank or under undue influence. The Kingsbury Trust Deed and related documents are fabrications and not genuine trusts. The Claimant is entitled to repayment and declarations as sought.

Parties
Claimant: Moira Karsten; Defendant: Paul Markham; Defendant (pt 20 Claim): Julian Kingsbury
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 December 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for Claimant
Legal Topics
Loan Agreements, Trust Declarations, Undue Influence, Misrepresentation, Sham Trusts, Fraud, Bankruptcy, Freezing Orders

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Moira Karsten

Claimant

Paul Markham

Defendant

Julian Kingsbury

Defendant (pt 20 Claim)

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Judgment

  1. 1 Whether payments made by Claimant to Defendant were loans or gifts
  2. 2 Validity and enforceability of trust deeds
  3. 3 Whether documents were signed in blank or under undue influence

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant received £1,125,000 from the Claimant as loans, not gifts or payments for services. The trust deeds and acknowledgments were validly executed, not signed in blank or under undue influence. The Kingsbury Trust Deed and related documents are fabrications and not genuine trusts. The Claimant is entitled to repayment and declarations as sought.

Court Disposition

Judgment for Claimant

Orders

  • Defendant to pay Claimant £850,000 plus interest (subject to further argument on rate and calculation)
  • Declarations that Defendant holds 2 Codrington Mews on trust for Claimant, subject to mortgagee and trustee in bankruptcy