(1) Graham Wolloff (2) Adrian Dante as joint trustees in bankruptcy of Alexander James Dhillon v Jagruti Kantilal Patel (Beneficial interests, trusts and restrictions : Beneficial interests, trusts and restrictions) [2019] UKFTT 104 (PC) (17 January 2019)

BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) >> (1) Graham Wolloff (2) Adrian Dante as joint trustees in bankruptcy of Alexander James Dhillon v Jagruti Kantilal Patel (Beneficial interests, trusts and restrictions : Beneficial interests, trusts and restrictions) [2019] UKFTT 104 (PC) (17 January 2019)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/PC/2019/104.html
Cite as: [2019] UKFTT 104 (PC)

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]



Decision summary
REF/2017/0573

Case reference REF/2017/0573
Date of decision 17/01/2019
Adjudicator Mr David Taylor
Applicant (1) Graham Wolloff (2) Adrian Dante as joint trustees in bankruptcy of Alexander James Dhillon
Respondent Jagruti Kantilal Patel
Main Category & Sub Category
Category Beneficial interests, trusts and restrictions
Sub Category Trustee in bankruptcy
Secondary Category & Sub Category
Category Practice and Procedure
Sub Category Scope of jurisdiction
Decision notes [2019] UKFTT 104 (PC). Application by trustees in bankruptcy to enter a Form J restriction against a property which had been jointly owned by the bankrupt and the respondent. Issue as to whether or not the bankrupt had ever had a beneficial interest in the property. At trial the applicants raised for the first time an issue over the tribunal’s jurisdiction to determine that question, and suggested that the tribunal’s jurisdiction was limited to considering whether or not the registered title ‘appeared' to be affected by the bankruptcy order because of the provisions of s.86(4) LRA 2002. I decided that s.86(4) had no relevance to an application to enter a Form J restriction and, by application of Jayasinghe v. Liyanage, that I did have jurisdiction to decide the substantive issue. So far as the substantive issue was concerned, this turned upon its own facts (this was a non-cohabitation case, so there was some brief consideration of common intention vs. resulting trust by reference to Stack v Dowden and Marr v. Collie). Application cancelled.
Download decision(s) [2019] UKFTT 104 (PC)  



BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/PC/2019/104.html