The High Court considered whether a flat registered in a son's name was owned by his father, or carried an interest for his mother, in a dispute with judgment creditors who hold a charging order over it.
Key facts
- Who: The registered owner of the flat, his father and mother, and the judgment creditors holding a charging order over it
- From: Judgment date 4 June 2026
- Source: Kroll Agency Services Limited & Ors v Inlustrem Maritime Limited & Ors [2026] EWHC 1453 (KB)
Background
In [2026] EWHC 1453 (KB), handed down on 4 June 2026 in the King's Bench Division of the High Court, Master Dagnall dealt with an enforcement dispute over Flat 8, 5 Ennismore Gardens, London SW7 1NL. The flat is registered at HM Land Registry in the name of Sam Tariverdi, the judgment debtor. The judgment records that it was purchased in his name.
The claimants are Kroll Agency Services Limited and others. On 9 February 2023 a consent order was made under which the defendants, including Sam, agreed to pay them $24 million, interest and costs. An interim charging order over the flat was granted on 18 May 2023, and a final charging order followed on 20 June 2023.
By late 2013 Sam was studying in England. A sale memorandum dated 25 November 2013 recorded a price of £725,000. The lease then had a term due to expire on 20 December 2026, and a new long lease could be sought under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993.
The question
Sam's father, Dr Hassan Tariverdy, applied claiming the whole beneficial interest, so that the final charging order should be discharged. He said he provided the money for the purchase price, the lease premium, the Santander mortgage and other costs, and that the flat was put in Sam's name to help Sam obtain an extended visa.
Sam's mother, Dr Farimah Ghezelaiagh, advanced a claim only if her husband's failed. She said the flat was bought for her to live in when in London and that she had funded expenditure in reliance on that. She claimed a beneficial interest or at least a right to occupy.
Mr Panagiotis Postantzis claimed an interest only if money that came from or through him or two companies was not treated as Hassan's.
The court had to decide whether the father or the mother held interests that would have priority over the charging order. The claimants argued that, even if Hassan's money paid for the flat, the presumption of advancement between father and son meant the beneficial interest passed to Sam. Alternatively, they said a 2014 document produced by Sam showed a loan, but that the formalities for creating an interest in land under section 2 of the 1989 Act were not met. They also said Farimah had shown no basis or reliance for any right.
What this means for those involved
The judgment shows the competing claims made over a property subject to a charging order: that the money for it came from a parent, that the presumption of advancement applies between father and son, and that a family member has a right to live there.
Anyone with a claim to a property that is subject to a charging order may wish to take legal advice and gather the documents that record who paid for it and why.
Sources
- Kroll Agency Services Limited & Ors v Inlustrem Maritime Limited & Ors [2026] EWHC 1453 (KB), High Court (King's Bench Division), 4 June 2026: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/kb/2026/1453