Balwant Singh Gill v Jashpal Singh Thind & Ors

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's challenge to findings that 100 shares in Jeeves Estates Ltd were held by Mr Gill on trust for his grandchildren. The appeal concerned whether an express trust had been proved and, subsidiarily, whether a resulting trust arose. The court upheld the trial judge's careful assessment of oral and documentary evidence, his credibility findings (including that certain documents were forged and that some witnesses were unreliable), and his application of the balance of probabilities standard to the question of intention to create a trust. The court concluded there was no error of law in the judge's approach to the three certainties of an express trust or in his alternative reasoning on resulting trust.

Background and procedures:

• This was an appeal from a combined Part 7 claim and a petition under section 994 of the Companies Act 2006 hearing at first instance before David Halpern KC (Deputy High Court Judge) ([2022] EWHC 2872 (Ch)). The first instance trial lasted eleven days. The judge declared that Mr Gill held 100 shares in Jeeves Estates Ltd on trust for Mr Gill's grandchildren and, in a consequential judgment, applied the class-closing rule to limit beneficiaries to the first six grandchildren ([2022] EWHC 3651 (Ch)).

Parties and issues:

• The dispute arose from a family disagreement about beneficial ownership of shares in three family companies (Jeeves Estates Ltd (JEL), Jeeves Investments Ltd (JIL) and Simicare Ltd). The appellant, Mr Gill, challenged the judge's finding that 100 JEL shares were held on trust for his grandchildren. The respondents (Mr and Mrs Thind) contended Mr Gill held the shares as trustee for the grandchildren. Mr Gill did not challenge the judge's findings concerning JIL and Simicare.

Relief sought: A declaration of beneficial ownership and relief under s.994 Companies Act 2006 (petition).

Issues framed by the court:

• Whether there was certainty of intention to create an express trust over the JEL shares;
• Whether subject-matter and beneficiaries were sufficiently certain (including when the beneficiary class closed);
• Whether, alternatively, a resulting trust arose in favour of the Thinds.

Court’s reasoning and conclusions:

• The Court of Appeal emphasised that the standard of proof was the civil standard (balance of probabilities) and that oral declarations of trust raise fact-finding questions where conduct and subsequent statements are admissible.
• The judge had carefully analysed documentary lacunae and witness credibility in line with authority (including Natwest Markets v Bilta). He rejected or limited evidence where appropriate (finding some documents forged and certain witnesses unreliable) and relied on contemporaneous documents and inherently probable conduct and statements (for example, Mr Gill’s statement recorded in 2018 that he held the shares for the grandchildren "for the moment").
• The court held the judge applied the correct legal tests (three certainties and resulting trust principles) and that his factual conclusions were open to him; therefore the appeal was dismissed.

Appeal dismissed. The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge had applied the correct legal principles (including the three certainties for express trusts and the presumption relevant to resulting trusts) and had reached fact findings on credibility and documentary weight that were open to him on the balance of probabilities. No error of law was identified in the judge’s conclusion that 100 JEL shares were held on trust for Mr Gill’s grandchildren (subject to the class-closing rule determined in the consequential judgment).

Appeal from the High Court of Justice, Business and Property Courts of England and Wales, Business List (ChD), Deputy High Court Judge David Halpern KC, [2022] EWHC 2872 (Ch). A consequential High Court judgment on class closure is reported at [2022] EWHC 3651 (Ch). The Court of Appeal heard the appeal and delivered judgment on 2 November 2023 ([2023] EWCA Civ 1276).