Well that’s the Summer done for another year; I returned to the office from the Great North (Canada, not Newcastle) to find that not too much has changed.
Disputes continue, costs are challenged and budgets still cause issues particularly when trying to depart.
One case to catch my jet lagged eye was:
Rahman v Hassan – Case number PT-2021-001068 – Royal Courts of Justice in London on August 1, 2024.
The case gives consideration to Part 36 offers and information to be provided when seeking to vary costs budgets and when payments on account should be paid and is worth considering given the clear guidance of HHJ Paul Matthews.
The matter was aimed to clarify aspects of the case following HHJ Paul Matthews’s judgment ([2024] EWHC 2038 (Ch)) concerning the late Mr. Al-Hasib Mian Muhammad Abdullah Al Mahmood’s assets.
The matter primarily focused on the disputed classification of eleven bank accounts as donationes mortis causa, which the judge initially ruled in favour of Mr. Rahman. The discussion centred around the interpretation and application of legal precedents concerning indicia of title, specifically relating to online banking access and its relevance in determining the transfer of dominion. The defendants argued that the judgment wrongly conflated the deceased’s intention to bequeath assets with the legal requirements for a valid donationes mortis causa, especially concerning registered land and online accounts.
Following the handing down of the draft judgment, the Court received written submissions on various matters including:
Click here for the rest of the case summary including the 8 grounds for the appeal and the clear guidance of HHJ Paul Matthews.