The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) has considered an appeal from the First-tier Tribunal rejecting the appellant’s evidence in a reference from HM Land Registry in Awan v Awan and another [2021] UKUT 303 (LC); [2021] PLSCS 213.
The case concerned six properties in and around Rochdale, which were the subject of transfers to the respondents, who were two of the appellant’s sons. The transfers were purportedly made pursuant to a 2016 deed of gift by the registered proprietor, Bashir Ahmed Malik. When the respondents sought to register the transfers, the appellant lodged objections maintaining that the deed of gift was a forgery, that he was the Bashir Ahmed Malik named in the register as proprietor of the properties and that he had not made or authorised the transfers to his sons.
HM Land Registry held documents which indicated that Bashir Ahmed Awan and Bashir Ahmed Malik were different people, including a transfer of commercial property between the two. The appellant’s objections were referred to the FTT. The respondents claimed that the Bashir Ahmed Malik who had executed the transfers was not their father but a family friend living in Pakistan who held the properties on trust for them.
The appellant, his wife and the respondents came to the UK from Kenya in 1967, settling in Rochdale. In 1978, the appellant and his wife changed their family name from Malik to Awan. Various explanations were provided for this: the appellant claimed it was because of the perceived caste superiority in the name Awan; a third son, Imran, said that it was because the appellant wished to avoid county court judgments against him in his original name.
The FTT did not decide which explanation was correct, but it did find that the appellant had not used the name Malik for any purposes after 1978, either in the UK or Pakistan, and that an identity card produced by the appellant in the name of Malik was not genuine. The FTT determined that since the appellant could think of no reason that he would transfer the commercial property to himself, the appellant was not the same person as the Bashir Ahmed Malik who was the transferor of the six properties.
The appellant took issue with the FTT’s conclusion, arguing that the FTT had failed to properly consider all the evidence in the case and to weigh up and analyse the competing accounts of the parties before deciding that his evidence was not credible.
The UT rejected the appeal. Neither side had presented a case which was amenable to a comprehensive resolution. The written evidence was considerable but lacking in detail, and there were allegations and counter-allegations on which it was quite impossible for the FTT to reach a conclusion.
The only matter referred to the FTT was the appellant’s objection to the registration of the six property transfers and whether it was made out: for the reasons provided, the FTT was entitled to conclude that it was not. Whether the respondents are entitled to be registered as proprietor of the properties remains for HM Land Registry to determine.
Louise Clark is a property law consultant and mediator
