A High Court judge has ruled in favour of a claimant in a dispute over assets belonging to a deceased man after finding that certain transactions amounted to gifts made in contemplation of death.
asserted
transactions → rule → death
The case involved Masudur Rahman and four defendants, who disputed the ownership of assets belonging to the late Al-Hasib Mian Muhammad Abdullah Al Mahmood.
asserted
who → involve → Mahmood
On 30 May 2024, the court held that the transactions qualified as donationes mortis causa, a legal term for gifts made in anticipation of death.
uncertain
transactions → hold → death
A further judgment on 1 August 2024 dealt with the assets covered by the decision, legal costs and the defendants’ applications for permission to appeal.
asserted
judgment → deal → permission
According to The National Archives, the court also clarified which bank accounts were excluded from the ruling.
uncertain
accounts → accord → ruling
Which UK assets were included in Rahman’s claim over gifts made before death
The dispute concerned assets that the deceased was alleged to have given to Rahman on 15 and/or 20 October 2020.
uncertain
deceased → include → October
The claim covered property in the United Kingdom and bank accounts, excluding property in Bangladesh.
uncertain
claim → cover → Bangladesh
The court’s May judgment found that certain transactions met the requirements for gifts made in contemplation of death.
uncertain
transactions → find → death
However, the later hearing addressed whether 11 additional bank accounts listed in a draft order were also covered.
asserted
accounts → address → order
Rahman argued that they were included.
asserted
they → argue → ?
The defendants disagreed.
asserted
defendants → disagree → ?
His Honour Judge Paul Matthews, sitting as a High Court judge, said those accounts had not been specifically listed in the relevant claim documents.
uncertain
accounts → sit → documents
He ruled that the earlier decision applied only to the assets pleaded in the claim, not every UK asset the deceased had discussed.
uncertain
deceased → rule → claim
Why did the judge grant permission to appeal on five grounds
asserted
judge → grant → grounds
The defendants sought permission to challenge the May ruling on eight grounds.
uncertain
defendants → seek → grounds
These included arguments about whether land certificates, lease copies, online banking passwords and bank cards could indicate title to assets.
uncertain
certificates → include → assets
They also questioned the judge’s approach to the deceased’s intention to make a gift.
asserted
They → question → gift
Judge Matthews found no real prospect of success on grounds one, six and seven.
asserted
Matthews → find → grounds
However, he said grounds two to five had a real prospect of success because they raised legal questions.
asserted
they → say → questions
He also accepted that ground eight raised novel issues about applying the doctrine to registered land and bank accounts accessed through online passwords and bank cards.
asserted
ground → accept → passwords
Permission to appeal was granted on grounds two to five and eight.
asserted
Permission → appeal → five
The decision did not overturn the earlier ruling.
asserted
decision → overturn → ruling
Why did the court order the defendants to pay Rahman’s legal costs
The judge ruled that Rahman was the successful party overall, although he had not obtained everything he claimed.
asserted
he → order → everything
The defendants accepted that assessment.
asserted
defendants → accept → assessment
Rahman had made a settlement offer in January 2023, proposing that he receive a house, its furniture and personal belongings, and all bank accounts.
asserted
he → make → house
The court later awarded him two flats instead of the furniture and personal effects.
asserted
court → award → flats
Judge Matthews considered the flats worth far more and found the outcome at least as advantageous as the offer.
asserted
outcome → consider → offer
Defendants ordered to pay £259,725 towards legal costs
asserted
Defendants → order → costs
The court dismissed Rahman’s application to increase his approved costs budget, which stood at £320,648.50 plus applicable VAT.
asserted
which → dismiss → 320,648.50
It nevertheless ordered the defendants to pay £259,725.29, plus applicable VAT, as an interim payment towards costs within 14 days.
asserted
It → order → days
Permission to appeal was conditional on that payment being made by the deadline.
asserted
payment → appeal → deadline
If the defendants pursued ground eight, they also had to pay 50% of Rahman’s appeal costs regardless of the outcome.
asserted
they → pursue → outcome
The judge limited Rahman’s right to an account of the estate to the assets found to have been given to him.
asserted
judge → limit → him
He dismissed his claim for interest on £650,000, but ordered that interest earned on the relevant accounts be accounted for.
uncertain
interest → dismiss → accounts
Disclaimer: This article is based on publicly available court documents.
asserted
article → base → documents
The Times of India has not independently verified the claims, asset details, settlement terms, or financial assessments mentioned.
uncertain
Times → verify → claims
The information reflects the court's findings and should not be interpreted as confirmation of any details beyond those recorded in the judgment.
asserted
information → reflect → judgment
The Aporia
