Sad Miah v Anthony Marlon Agostini (Charges and charging orders : Fraud, forgery and undue influence/duress)  UKFTT 215 (PC) (23 March 2018)
Respondent's application to cancel a Unilateral Notice protecting a purported second charge over his title. Applicant claimed the benefit of the charge. Respondent alleged that his signature had been forged. The charge had been drafted by a solicitor but not in standard form - designed to complement a contemporaneous agreement to sell the property to the mortgagee. Respondent had made a similar application, in respect of a second charge in favour of a third party connected with Applicant) over another of his properties, also referred to the Tribunal. REspondent had settled that case and accepted at the hearing that he had signed that charge. Respondent's expert evidence was that certain associated documents (including the sale agreement) were probably forged, but was â€œinconclusiveâ€ re the charge itself. The charge was validly executed on its face and Respondentâ€™s signature witnessed by a solicitor, although he did not give evidence. Held that the charge had been validly executed and the application was dismissed.
A HTML version of this file is not available click here or view below the pdf version :  UKFTT 215 (PC).pdf