This was a preliminary issue hearing in financial remedy proceedings. The wife’s parents had been permitted to intervene. The court was tasked with determining the beneficial interests in two parcels of land which had become very valuable after the wife had agreed an option to purchase with a housing development company.
The wife had signed two declarations of trust, one with her mother and one with her father. On the face of the documents, the trust with the wife’s mother pre-dated the trust with her father. However, the husband and her father alleged that the declaration of trust with the wife’s mother was a sham and was signed at a much later date.
Following a three‑day preliminary issue hearing, the court held that the declaration of trust with the wife’s mother was indeed a sham and was intentionally backdated. It did not reflect the true intentions of the parties at the time. The father’s trust was upheld.
The judgment includes an examination of the factual chronology, contemporaneous conveyancing documentation, and the credibility of the witnesses. The court applied the principles enshrined in Snook v London & West Riding Investments Ltd [1967] 2 QB 786 on the issue of sham, and the assessment of beneficial interests also considered the Pallant v Morgan [1953] Ch 43 equity.
