Gabriela Mozerle Teixeira v Amir Ahmad Moaven & Ors

Declarations of trust which purport to confirm pre-existing beneficial interests have no retrospective effect unless those interests are independently established. Where such declarations were created to give third parties a false impression of ownership, they are shams and confer no legal or equitable rights.

A claim under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 is not an action on a specialty and is not subject to the twelve-year limitation period in section 8 of the Limitation Act 1980. The court may nevertheless defer substantive relief under section 10 of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 until the underlying financial-provision claim has been determined.

The proceedings concerned the estate of Abbas Moaven, who died in 2012. His will divided the residue equally between his wife, Gabriela Mozerle Teixeira, and their two children.

Four properties had been acquired in Abbas’s sole name. Shortly before his death, he executed declarations stating that each property was held in equal shares for himself, his brother Amir and their mother. The personal representatives, Gabriela and the children disputed the alleged pre-existing arrangements and contended that the declarations were shams intended to reduce the estate.

The court determined the beneficial ownership of the properties, the validity and effect of the declarations, and, on a hypothetical basis, issues under sections 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 and 10 of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975.

1. Beneficial ownership and sham. Abbas’s registered proprietorship created a presumption that he was the beneficial owner. Amir and Mrs Nazemi’s estate failed to establish the alleged long-standing tripartite arrangement or any resulting constructive trust. The evidence showed that the declarations were selected and executed to reduce the apparent value of Abbas’s estate, rather than to record an objectively existing arrangement.
2. The declarations were shams within the principle stated in Snook v London and West Riding Investment Ltd [1967] 2 QB 786. They were intended to convey to third parties and the court that the beneficial ownership differed from the parties’ actual rights. They therefore had no legal or equitable effect. The properties remained wholly beneficially owned by Abbas and fell into his estate.
3. The declarations were, in any event, properly construed as confirmatory of alleged pre-existing trusts, rather than as creating new prospective interests. Since no such pre-existing trusts existed, they would have been ineffective even apart from their sham character.
4. Section 423. Had the declarations operated as dispositions, they would have been transactions at an undervalue entered into to put assets beyond the reach of persons who might claim against the estate. The claims were not actions on a specialty. Following Zedra Trust Co. (Jersey) Ltd v THG plc [2026] 2 WLR 479, section 8 of the Limitation Act 1980 did not apply, and the court held that no statutory limitation period barred the claims. Section 424(2) would also have made relief obtained by the children available to other victims of the transaction.
5. Section 10. On the hypothetical assumption that effective dispositions had been made, the statutory requirements for section 10(2) relief would have been met. No substantive restoration order would have been made before determining the children’s and Gabriela’s financial-provision claims.
6. Declarations were made that the properties had always been beneficially Abbas’s and that the declarations of trust were shams without legal or equitable effect.

First-instance decision. The judgment does not state an appellate history.