PC: AI Generated
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. 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. The dispute concerned assets that the deceased was alleged to have given to Rahman on 15 and/or 20 October 2020. However, the later hearing addressed whether 11 additional bank accounts listed in a draft order were also covered. Rahman had made a settlement offer in January 2023, proposing that he receive a house, its furniture and personal belongings, and all bank accounts. The court dismissed Rahman’s application to increase his approved costs budget, which stood at £320,648.50 plus applicable VAT. It nevertheless ordered the defendants to pay £259,725.29, plus applicable VAT, as an interim payment towards costs within 14 days. If the defendants pursued ground eight, they also had to pay 50% of Rahman’s appeal costs regardless of the outcome. He dismissed his claim for interest on £650,000, but ordered that interest earned on the relevant accounts be accounted for.
Because they raised legal questions, however, he said grounds two to five had a real prospect of success. The defendants were therefore liable for costs on the standard basis before 14 February 2023 and on the indemnity basis afterwards, with interest and an additional amount under the relevant court rules.
The court also clarified which bank accounts were excluded from the ruling, according to The National Archives. His Honour Judge Paul Matthews, sitting as a High Court judge, said those accounts had not been specifically listed in the relevant claim documents. 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. 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. The claim covered property in the United Kingdom and bank accounts, excluding property in Bangladesh. The court’s May judgment found that certain transactions met the requirements for gifts made in contemplation of death. Rahman argued that they were included. The defendants disagreed. The defendants sought permission to challenge the May ruling on eight grounds. These included arguments about whether land certificates, lease copies, online banking passwords and bank cards could indicate title to assets. They also questioned the judge’s approach to the deceased’s intention to make a gift. Judge Matthews found no real prospect of success on grounds one, six and seven. 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. Permission to appeal was granted on grounds two to five and eight. The judge ruled that Rahman was the successful party overall, although he had not obtained everything he claimed. The defendants accepted that assessment. The court later awarded him two flats instead of the furniture and personal effects. Judge Matthews considered the flats worth far more and found the outcome at least as advantageous as the offer. Permission to appeal was conditional on that payment being made by the deadline. The judge limited Rahman’s right to an account of the estate to the assets found to have been given to him. Disclaimer: This article is based on publicly available court documents. The Times of India has not independently verified the claims, asset details, settlement terms, or financial assessments mentioned. The information reflects the court’s findings and should not be interpreted as confirmation of any details beyond those recorded in the judgment. You use AI every day. Now get your AI Quotient. Take the AIQ test.
He ruled that the earlier decision applied only to the assets pleaded in the claim, not every UK asset the deceased had discussed. The decision did not overturn the earlier ruling.