[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Abdalla v Abdalla [2002] EWCA Civ 1395 (11 September 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/1395.html Cite as: [2002] EWCA Civ 1395

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM FAMILY DIVISION
(MR RICHARD ANELAY QC)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 Wednesday, 11th September 2002

Wednesday, 11th September 2002

1. LORD JUSTICE WARD: This is an application by Mr Abdalla, whom I will call the husband as the judge did, for permission to appeal against the order made by Mr Richard Anelay QC, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court on 28th May when he ordered in the Chancery action, which had been transferred to the Family Division, that the husband's brother, Karim, deliver up to the wife's solicitors all the documents of title including, but not limited to, land certificates now in his possession, power or control, in respect of properties at 42 and 44 Grange Road in Ramsgate, and in respect of ICL House in Margate so that the Lands Registry could register the freehold titles of those properties in favour of the wife. On that being done her claims, and indeed his, for ancillary relief were to be dismissed and there was to be a clean break.
2. It is in many ways an unusual and extraordinary case. As I read it, and found frequent references in favour of the husband and his brother Karim and adverse to the wife, I was preparing myself for a finding in favour of the husband. It came in the dismissal of the wife's claim under section 37 for an avoidance of disposition; but the ultimate result is still that in effect the wife gets everything and the husband gets nothing.
3. In a nutshell the properties concerned were treated by the judge as having been acquired by Karim, or possibly by Karim and the husband, from moneys generated entirely by them apart from a few payments of child benefit which the wife may have contributed into one of the bank accounts. But the equitable interest in the properties appears, I would have thought (though it is a long judgment and it may need more careful study than I have given it) to be vested in the brother, or possibly brother and husband.
4. The properties changed hands several times between the members of the family, but ultimately the legal title vested in Karim. He executed transfers in favour of the wife. The issue was whether the husband was under such undue pressure from the wife, who in effect blackmailed him that he would not ever see his children again, so that he, in that desperate state, put undue pressure upon his brother in order to execute the transfers of the properties into the wife's name. The judge eventually found that there had not been that undue pressure. The startling fact remains, I am told, that the two boys have however remained with their father and that sadly he has no contact with his young daughter.
5. The complication of the facts, and some difficulties about the law of undue influence and undue pressure, give me enough concern to think that the matter needs greater attention than I could give it on an application for permission to appeal and I am disposed to adjourn this matter to be heard on notice to the respondent, and to Karim, who plays no part in the appeal. But I do so for another reason. I read with great disquiet that Mr Dessol, the wife's solicitor, has had an affair with her, at least during some parts of these proceedings. It is apparent even on the superficial readings of this case that he was very actively involved in it and his conduct of the litigation as mitigation has been criticised by the judge in other respects. Mr Abdalla believes the affair started before it was admitted by the parties and still continues. I am not sure that there is any relevance of that in the events which actually happened, but it is an added reason why I think this matter needs more careful attention. It is perhaps a reason why Mr Dessol might find it politic, if not exactly comfortable personally, to attend the Court of Appeal when next this matter is listed.
6. I have urged Mr Abdalla to seek professional advice. It may be within the Moslem community that he will have access to that advice, and I hope he is able to get it because he is quite unable adequately to present any appeal without a great deal of professional help. Failing that, it is a matter which troubles me sufficiently for me to invite the office to record my disquiet so that if necessary we may approach the Bar pro bono unit to cast an eye over this judgment and see whether there is any point of substance in it.
7. For those reasons I shall adjourn this matter to be heard on notice to the other side. A copy of this judgment should be prepared and transcribed at public expense in order that the husband and anybody who advises him can see it, and in order that the wife, and especially Mr Dessol, can see it.
(Application adjourned; no order for costs; transcript to be provided to litigant at public expense).