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.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. According to The National Archives, the court also clarified which bank accounts were excluded from the 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. 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.However, the later hearing addressed whether 11 additional bank accounts listed in a draft order were also covered. Rahman argued that they were included. The defendants disagreed. His Honour Judge Paul Matthews, sitting as a High Court judge, said those accounts had not been specifically listed in the relevant claim documents. He ruled that the earlier decision applied only to the assets pleaded in the claim, not every UK asset the deceased had discussed.
Why did the judge grant permission to appeal on five grounds
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.However, he said grounds two to five had a real prospect of success because they raised legal 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. Permission to appeal was granted on grounds two to five and eight. The decision did not overturn the earlier 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. The defendants accepted that 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. 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. 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.
Defendants ordered to pay £259,725 towards legal costs
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. Permission to appeal was conditional on that payment being made by the deadline.If the defendants pursued ground eight, they also had to pay 50% of Rahman’s appeal costs regardless of the outcome. The judge limited Rahman’s right to an account of the estate to the assets found to have been given to him. He dismissed his claim for interest on £650,000, but ordered that interest earned on the relevant accounts be accounted for.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.
