Members of a family who lost out on a £2.8m inheritance after a relative left his estate to a friend by using a doctrine of Roman law have won permission to appeal over a potential ‘precedent of importance’.
Al-Hasib Al Mahmood died on 23 October 2020, just two weeks after his wife died from pneumonia, a court heard. The 82-year-old was living with a friend named Masudur Rahman, whom he and his wife had met in 2011 and had come to rely on for assistance as they became older.
Al Mahmood had made a previous will in 2015 which stated that his estate would go to his late wife’s brother and three nieces.
The court heard that during lockdown Al Mahmood had tried to secure witnesses for a new will with Rahman as beneficiary. He appeared to have been unaware of the temporary alteration to the law allowing the witnessing of wills by videoconferencing, the High Court heard. Instead, Al Mahmood sent a text to a will draftsman.
Rahman alleged that on 15 October and 23 October 2020, Al Mahmood had given all of his assets in the UK – including chattels, bank accounts and registered land – to him.
In May, Rahman obtained a judgement which ruled that he validly inherited the estate, including because Al Mahmood had made a gift ’in contemplation of death’.
But last week His Honour Judge Paul Matthews, in the High Court, agreed to grant Al Mahmood’s relatives permission to appeal on five grounds.
One of the grounds which was given permission to go to appeal was that ‘the issues raised in this case regarding bank accounts and registered land are novel, and the decision in this case will set a precedent of importance’.
The judge commented: ‘I accept that the decisions in principle relating to the application of the doctrine of donatio mortis causa to registered land and to bank accounts using online passwords and bank cards are novel. Even if there were no real prospect of success on them, their novelty and their increasing importance in modern society provide a compelling reason for appeals on these points to be heard.’
But the judge imposed a condition of permission to appeal that a payment on account be made to Rahman, who had said he was unable to fund further legal costs.
