Ahmad & Anor v Gould, Court of Appeal - Civil Division, December 06, 2005, [2005] EWCA Civ 1829

Resolution Date:December 06, 2005
Issuing Organization:Civil Division
Actores:Ahmad & Anor v Gould

SMITH BERNAL WORDWAVEB2/2005/1219 Neutral Citation Number: [2005] EWCA Civ 1829IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM KINGSTON COUNTY COURT(HER HONOUR JUDGE WILLIAMS)Royal Courts of Justice Strand London, WC2A 2LL Tuesday, 6 December 2005 B E F O R E:LORD JUSTICE JACOB LORD JUSTICE MOORE-BICK - - - - - - - 1. IJAZ AHMAD 2. JOSEPHINE AHMAD Claimants/Respondents -v- JOHN MICHAEL GOULD Defendant/Appellant - - - - - - -(Computer-Aided Transcript of the Palantype Notes ofSmith Bernal Wordwave Limited190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AGTel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) - - - - - - -MR CHRISTOPHER WAGSTAFFE (instructed by Caporn Campbell, Surbiton, KT6 5NU) appeared on behalf of the AppellantMR GILES RICHARDSON (instructed by Messrs Calvert Smith and Sutcliffe, Richmond, TW9 1PU) appeared on behalf of the Respondents - - - - - - -J U D G M E N T1. LORD JUSTICE JACOB: This is an appeal, with my permission, from a decision given on 6 May 2005 of Her Honour Judge Williams sitting in the Kingston County Court. The dispute is between Mr and Mrs Ahmad, on the one hand, and Mrs Ahmad's brother, Mr Gould. It concerns a property in Weybridge. The judge said that the Ahmads, who hold the legal title of the property, are also the holders of the entire beneficial interest in it. Before the judge, Mr Gould contended that he was the entire beneficial owner, alternatively, that he had an interest by way of a constructive or resulting Trust. Now, only the latter is contended for.2. At the time of the purchase of the property in the names of Mr and Mrs Ahmad, Mr Gould was coping with financial and matrimonial difficulties. The Ahmads were living in Texas and had just sold a flat in Bristol. They said they wanted to buy a United Kingdom property as an alternative investment by way of keeping a foothold in the United Kingdom. At the time Mr Gould was in the process of selling his former matrimonial home. 3. The judge found that there was an express agreement between the parties, which is set out in paragraph 10 of Mrs Ahmad's witness statement. That says that the agreement was:"(i) My husband and I would buy the property as an investment and as a home for him [Mr Gould]. (ii) We would permit him to buy the property from us when he was able at the then market price. (iii) He would pay the mortgage instalments in lieu of rent. In practice he would pay the...

To continue reading