Property ownership dispute resolved in favour of appellant

Introduction

The High Court of Justice, Business and Property Courts of England and Wales, recently delivered a judgment in the case of Vashihan Ratnasingham vs Andrew Lewis Hunt and Kent Property Estates Ltd. The case, presided over by Mr Justice Thompsell, involved an appeal against an order by HHJ Parfitt concerning a property ownership dispute. The judgment addressed two main grounds of appeal related to property interests and alleged breaches of trust.

Background

The dispute centred around several properties, notably the Folkestone Road property, Northdown, and the Albion Inn. Mr Ratnasingham, the appellant, claimed a beneficial interest in these properties based on contributions and agreements with Mr Hunt, the first respondent. The case also involved the use of Northdown as security for acquiring the Albion, which led to allegations of breach of trust against Kent Property Estates Ltd (KPEL), the second respondent.

Ground 2: Property Interests and Breach of Trust

The first ground of appeal questioned the ownership interests in the Albion and other properties. Mr Ratnasingham argued that his contributions towards Northdown entitled him to a share in the Albion, acquired using Northdown as security. The court rejected this claim, finding no basis for tracing his interest into the Albion. However, the court found KPEL in breach of trust for using Northdown as security for its own benefit, entitling Mr Ratnasingham to an account of profits from this breach.

Ground 4: Distribution of Estate Assets

The second ground of appeal involved the distribution of Mr Bernard Smith's estate, in which Mr Hunt was the executor. Mr Ratnasingham contested the valuation and distribution of the Folkestone Road property, claiming it was undervalued and that the distribution breached a trust agreement. The court upheld the valuation but found that Mr Hunt's self-dealing constituted a breach of trust, warranting an account of profits.

Legal Reasoning and Precedents

The court's decision relied on established legal principles regarding trusts and fiduciary duties. The judgment referenced Foskett v McKeown and Recovery Partners v Rukhadze, emphasising the stringent rules against fiduciaries making unauthorised profits. The court also highlighted the importance of informed consent in dealings involving trust assets.

Implications for the Parties

The judgment directed the case back to the County Court to determine the account of profits due to Mr Ratnasingham. The court encouraged the parties to resolve the matter through negotiation or alternative dispute resolution, given the likely low quantum of profits involved.

Conclusion

The High Court's ruling clarified the legal obligations of trustees and the rights of beneficiaries in property disputes. The decision underscored the importance of adhering to trust agreements and the consequences of breaching fiduciary duties.

Learn More

For more information on shareholder law, see BeCivil's guide to Shareholder Law.