Santokh Singh Bains v Nadira Siraj Irshad & Anor

The claimant sought a share of the proceeds of the sale of the Brentwood Hotel and an interest in a residential property on the basis of an asserted partnership, constructive trust, proprietary estoppel and unlawful means conspiracy. The judge conducted extensive factual findings, rejecting the claimant’s central contention that he had a twin brother called Aamer Gull and holding that the name was an alter ego used by the claimant. The court found there had been a partnership at will but that the claimant was bought out by remortgaging the hotel in June 2011 and that the first defendant thereafter became sole beneficial owner. Claims based on resulting trust, common intention constructive trust, proprietary estoppel, Pallant v Morgan equity, tracing and unlawful means conspiracy were all dismissed. The claimant’s litigation conduct and falsehoods (including manufacture of identity documents and a false death certificate) were held to be highly relevant and damaging to his credibility and to the weight of his case.

Background and nature of the claim:

• The claimant brought proceedings for an alleged half share in the proceeds of sale of the Brentwood Hotel and an entitlement to repayment of investment in a Cardiff residential property, asserting rights arising under partnership law, constructive trust, proprietary estoppel and unlawful means conspiracy; he alternatively sought tracing of proceeds.
• The defendants denied the substantive ownership and beneficial claims and contested the existence of any separate person called Aamer Gull.

Procedural posture: This is a first instance trial heard 27 November–5 December 2024 (judgment handed down 7 March 2025).

Issues for decision:

• whether a continuing intimate relationship existed and its relevance;
• whether the claimant had a twin brother Aamer Gull or whether that name was an alias used by the claimant;
• whether the parties were partners and, if so, whether the claimant retained any beneficial interest at the time of sale;
• whether equitable remedies (constructive trust, proprietary estoppel, Pallant v Morgan) or tracing/unlawful means conspiracy remedies were available;
• whether the claimant’s conduct in the litigation disentitled him to equitable relief.

Court’s reasoning and findings (concise):

• The judge set out the applicable civil standards of proof and principles for assessing witness credibility, documentary weight, burden and standard of proof, and the relevance of failure to call witnesses.
• On the facts the judge rejected the claimant’s account in material respects, found the intimate relationship had ended by 1987 and found that the name "Aamer Gull" did not designate a separate person but was an alter ego of the claimant; the judge reached that conclusion after detailed evaluation of identity documents, witness evidence and the investigator’s reports.
• The properties had been conveyed to the first defendant and to the person named as Gull as joint legal proprietors with an express declaration in the transfer forms. The judge found a partnership at will existed, but that in June 2011 the hotel was refinanced and monies paid to the claimant pursuant to an agreement which the judge found constituted a buy-out; the first defendant thereafter carried the legal and beneficial ownership and liability for the mortgage.
• Claims based on resulting trust, constructive trust (common intention), proprietary estoppel and Pallant v Morgan failed on the facts (no express or inferable continuing agreement, no unconscionable conduct by the defendant and no sufficient detrimental reliance), and tracing and unlawful means conspiracy claims fell away because the claimant had no share to trace or recover.
• The claimant’s extensive falsehoods and fabricated documents in the course of litigation were identified and found to be highly damaging; the judge held that, had any equitable claim otherwise succeeded, the claimant’s misconduct would have been a bar to relief.

Conclusion: the claimant’s claims were dismissed in their entirety and the judge proposed to refer the papers to the Director of Public Prosecutions for consideration in light of the findings of dishonesty.

The claim is dismissed. The court found (i) the name "Aamer Gull" was an alter ego of the claimant and not a separate person; (ii) the parties formed a partnership at will but the claimant was bought out by a June 2011 refinancing, which transferred the balance of value to the claimant and left the first defendant as sole owner and borrower; (iii) equitable remedies pleaded (resulting trust, common intention constructive trust, proprietary estoppel, Pallant v Morgan) and unlawful means conspiracy/ tracing all fail on the facts; (iv) the claimant’s dishonest conduct in the litigation further undermined any equitable relief.