Haroon Rasheed Barkatali v Remmie Christopher Augustine Davies

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeMr Justice Morgan
Judgment Date27 March 2020
Neutral Citation[2020] EWHC 753 (Ch)
Date27 March 2020
Docket NumberCase No: PT-2020-000253
CourtChancery Division

[2020] EWHC 753 (Ch)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

CHANCERY DIVISION

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Before:

Mr Justice Morgan

Case No: PT-2020-000253

Between:
Haroon Rasheed Barkatali
Applicant
and
(1) Remmie Christopher Augustine Davies
(2) HSBC UK Bank Plc
(3) Elderbridge Limited
Respondents

Mr Hugh Cumber (instructed by Kingsley Napley LLP) for the Applicant

Ms Mercy Akman (instructed by Spence & Horne, Solicitors) for the First Respondent

Hearing date: 23 March 2020

Judgment Approved by the court for handing down

Mr Justice Morgan
1

This is an application for an interim injunction where the applicant is Mr Barkatali and the First Respondent is Mr Davies.

2

The application is for an order that Mr Davies do immediately deliver to Mr Barkatali a key to the flat at 12A Maygrove Road, London NW6 to allow Mr Barkatali to resume occupation of that flat. Mr Barkatali also seeks an order preventing Mr Davies from interfering with his occupation of that flat and further orders restraining matters such as threats of violence, intimidation and damage.

3

Mr Cumber appeared on behalf of Mr Barkatali and Ms Akman appeared on behalf of Mr Davies.

4

This application has been listed on short notice to Mr Davies. Ms Akman on behalf of Mr Davies has asked for an adjournment of the hearing to allow her solicitors to obtain proper instructions from Mr Davies. She suggests that the adjournment will need to be for a number of weeks given the current pandemic and Mr Davies' vulnerable condition. Mr Cumber on behalf of Mr Barkatali submits that the application is urgent as Mr Barkatali is seeking an order reinstating him in the flat and it would be unjust to keep him out of possession for the length of the adjournment sought by Mr Davies. When I asked Ms Akman if she would agree to an adjournment of seven days, she submitted that period would be of no assistance to Mr Davies whatever. In these circumstances, I will consider the basis of the application and then decide what course to take.

5

I will begin by setting out some facts which are not in dispute.

6

Until his death on 19 January 2020, Mr Davies' son, Richard Davies, was the lessee of the flat and lived in it as his home. In this judgment, I will refer to the son as Richard and to the father as Mr Davies.

7

Mr Barkatali lived in the flat with Richard as a licensee. On Richard's death, that licence determined by operation of law.

8

Richard died intestate. He is survived by his father and his brother. Under the rules as to instestacy, Mr Davies will in due course inherit the entirety of the estate. Mr Davies is 87 years old.

9

No one has yet obtained letters of administration in relation to Richard's estate.

10

Up to 15 March 2020, Mr Barkatali continued to live in the flat. On 15 March 2020, Mr Davies caused the locks on the flat to be changed while Mr Barkatali was out. Mr Barkatali has not been able to gain access to the flat since then and has been staying with a friend which is not satisfactory.

11

Mr Barkatali does not say that he has any present right to be in possession or occupation of the flat pursuant to a tenancy or licence or a beneficial interest or anything similar. He puts his claim to an injunction giving him the ability to return to the flat on two bases.

12

The first basis is that he says he is entitled to claim an order under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 and the particular order which he will seek and obtain is an order allowing him to remain in the flat either as the transferee of the flat or pursuant to a life interest under a settlement.

13

The second basis of the claim is that he says that, although he did not have any legal interest in the flat when he was evicted on 15 March 2020, he was evicted by Mr Davies who also did not have any title to or right to possession of the flat. It is said that because Mr Barkatali had been in possession of the flat before he was evicted, he had a better right to possession of it than Mr Davies did and he should therefore be allowed to retake possession of the flat as before. In support of the submission that Mr Davies did not have any right to possession of the flat it is said that the lease of the flat is vested in the Public Trustee, that Mr Davies is not entitled to represent or act for the estate and the fact that he is the sole beneficiary of the estate does not give him any particular interest in the flat but only a right in equity to have the estate duly administered.

14

I will deal first with the claim under the 1975 Act.

15

Mr Barkatali says that he is a person who can apply for an order under the 1975 Act as he comes within section 1(1)(ba) together with section 1(1A) and he also comes within section 1(1)(e).

16

Section 1(1)(ba) refers to section 1(1A) which applies, so far as relevant, if, during the period of two years ending immediately before the date when the deceased died, the applicant was living in the same household as the deceased and as if the applicant and the deceased were civil partners.

17

Mr Barkatali's witness statement sets out facts which satisfy section 1(1A). Ms Akman submits that Mr Davies would be in a position to show that those alleged facts are not true but I do not have a witness statement from Mr Davies nor in any other way the evidence on which he would wish to rely. Accordingly, I will proceed on the basis that Mr Barkatali is eligible as an applicant under section 1(1)(ba).

18

Mr Barkatali also relied on section 1(1)(e). In view of my earlier conclusion it is not strictly necessary to deal with this paragraph but because a discussion of this paragraph may be material to other matters which need consideration, I will comment on it. This paragraph refers to a person who immediately before the death of the deceased was being maintained either wholly or partly by the deceased. In his witness statement, Mr Barkatali asserts that this was the case. However, other parts of the witness statement, in particular, paragraph 12, make this assertion look very doubtful. The witness statement,...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT