British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) >> Mohammed Waheed Nawabi v Kiniz Akhtar (Practice and Procedure : Practice and Procedure) [2019] UKFTT 626 (PC) (30 September 2019)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/PC/2019/626.html
Cite as: [2019] UKFTT 626 (PC)
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Decision summary
REF/2017/0628
| Case reference | REF/2017/0628 |
|---|---|
| Date of decision | 30/09/2019 |
| Adjudicator | Mr Owen Rhys |
| Applicant | Mohammed Waheed Nawabi |
| Respondent | Kiniz Akhtar |
| Main Category & Sub Category | |
| Category | Practice and Procedure |
| Sub Category | Setting aside final orders |
| Secondary Category & Sub Category | |
| Category | Beneficial interests, trusts and restrictions |
| Sub Category | Constructive trust - inferred common intention |
| Decision notes | [2019] UKFTT 626 (PC)>Application for a restriction re a claimed beneficial interest based on a common intention constructive trust. Property acquired in Respondent’s sole name, with a cash deposit of £63,000 and the balance raised on mortgage. The parties had previously entered into an Islamic marriage, cohabited at the property and had 2 children together. Applicant’s case was that he had provided much of the deposit in cash on the basis of an agreement that he should have a half share. Respondent’s case was that he was never intended to have an interest, and she had raised the cash deposit from other sources (including Applicant’s father), and made all the repayments on the mortgage. Order made debarring Respondent from the proceedings for non-service of Statement of Case and directing Land Registry to give effect to the application â€" implemented by Land Registry - outstanding application by Respondent’s representatives overlooked in error. When the error was pointed out, the Tribunal set aside its final order, but did not inform Land Registry and restriction remained on the register. Initial hearing adjourned â€" directing given to Respondent forthwith to make an application in form RX3 to cancel the now subsisting restriction, with a view to dealing with the original reference together with a new reference from Land Registry of the RX3 on the basis of the statements of case and evidence already filed in the original reference. At adjourned hearing Respondent had made the application but there had been a delay in giving notice to Applicant and the time for objection had not expired. Accordingly, there had been no new reference but the hearing went ahead nevertheless. HELD that Applicant did not have an interest in the property. By the time that that Decision and final order were issued, Applicant had failed to object to Respondent’s RX3, and the restriction (wrongly entered as a result of the Tribunal’s error) had already been cancelled. Final order therefore unnecessary in the event. |
| Download decision(s) | [2019] UKFTT 626 (PC) |