Mahtani & Anor v Sippy & Ano

A court will grant a negative declaration or injunction only where it serves a useful purpose. Relief concerning title to immovable property situated outside England and Wales falls outside the court’s jurisdiction, even if framed as a declaration of entitlement rather than title. A claim or proposed amendment should not proceed where the relief sought is futile, unsupported by evidence, or would require a party to take an unnecessary stance on another person’s alleged claim. Foreign-law assertions in amended pleadings require a properly reasoned evidential basis; an expert’s bare conclusion is insufficient.

The claimants, Usha Mahtani and Veena Panjabi, sued their sister, Laila Sippy, and her son, Sascha Sippy, relying on an alleged Hindu family arrangement concerning the estate of their father, Mr Chulani.

The second defendant applied to strike out the proceedings against her. The claim concerned, first, a Florida apartment and, secondly, declarations and injunctive relief intended to prevent or neutralise an alleged trust claim by Sascha Sippy. The claimants also sought permission to amend their particulars of claim to plead further consequences of the family arrangement under Indian law.

The central issues were whether the court had jurisdiction to declare entitlement to the Florida property, whether the proposed declarations and injunction would serve any useful purpose, and whether the proposed Indian-law allegations had an arguable evidential foundation.

1. Florida apartment. The court had no jurisdiction to determine title to immovable property situated outside England and Wales. The proposed declaration that the claimants were entitled to the Florida apartment was, in substance, a determination of title, and the distinction drawn by the claimants had no difference in law. The relevant pleaded paragraphs and relief were struck out.
2. The evidence showed that the transfer contemplated by the alleged family arrangement had already occurred. Mrs Sippy had no present ability unilaterally to procure the further transfer sought. Any Florida probate proceedings would have to be brought by the appropriate persons, and there was no evidence that Mrs Sippy would refuse to disclaim any interest if required. An injunction compelling her to act would therefore have been fanciful. Claims for mesne profits or the value of the apartment were also unsupported by evidence and were struck out.
3. Negative declarations and injunction. A negative declaration may perform a positive role where it is useful, applying the principle described by Lord Woolf MR in Messier-Dowty Limited v Sabena [2000] 1 WLR 2040. Here, however, the claimants showed no sufficient basis for requiring Mrs Sippy to take a position on whether her son’s alleged trust claim survived the family arrangement. The proposed declarations that no trust existed and that Sascha Sippy had no rights, and the proposed injunction restraining Mrs Sippy from assisting him, would serve no useful purpose.
4. Proposed amendments. The proposed Indian-law allegations concerning a duty on Mrs Sippy to prevent or indemnify against her son’s claim were supported only by an expert opinion stating the conclusions sought to be pleaded. The opinion supplied no reasoned basis for those conclusions. Permission to amend was therefore refused.

As against Mrs Sippy, the proceedings came to an end: the existing claims were struck out and permission to amend was refused.