Singh v Singh (2024) Edmonton County Court - Rayan Imam
In January 2000, the Claimant purchased the Property from his late parents and became the registered freehold proprietor. Prior to the Claimant’s purchase, the Property served a dual purpose: (i) the family home, and (ii) a place from which his late parents operated their business – a ground floor off-licence.
In 2008, the Defendant and his family took up occupation of the first floor flat in the Property. During his 16-year residence at the flat, the Defendant had only discharged utilities consumed by his family and had never paid any rent to the Claimant.
The Claimant sought possession, contending that the Defendant occupied the flat on a gratuitous licence that had been validly determined. The Defendant resisted possession on the following grounds:
A) Propriety estoppel: the Defendant alleged that prior to the transfer of the freehold interest to the Claimant, the parties’ late father made an unequivocal representation to him (and all of his 8 siblings) that the Property was to be shared amongst them all equally, despite the transfer.
B) Common Intention Constructive Trust: the Defendant invited the court to infer a common intention and detriment from, (i) £30,000 towards the mortgage, and (ii) a contribution of funds and skill during the works undertaken at the Property.
The Claimant’s case in response sought to establish:
A) no equitable interest had arisen pursuant to proprietary estoppel. If it had, any such equity estoppel was overreached by disposition of the freehold interest to Claimant, and
B) no equitable interest has arisen pursuant to a common intention constructive trust.
The Defendant called six witnesses in support of his case. Rayan’s effective and careful cross-examination led the trial judge to find that the evidence he heard was: “nebulous to the say the least”, “hopelessly vague”, “partisan, incoherent and speculative”, and “entirely incapable of substantiating” his claim. Importantly, the trial judge accepted Rayan’s submission that the Defendant had manufactured elements of his evidence to bolster his case.
The trial judge’s factual findings meant an end to the Defendant’s case having failed to establish any of the elements needed to mount a successful claim and it was not therefore necessary to consider arguments advanced in respect of overreaching.
To instruct Rayan, please email [email protected] or call 0207 404 5252.
