Our private wealth disputes team acted for the court-appointed independent administrators in the recent case of Teixeira v Moaven. This notable case shows that the court will look beyond formal estate paperwork where strong evidence suggests it does not reflect reality. It also illustrates the value of independent administrators where a claimant lacks the means to pursue a complex asset claim alone.
Amir Abbas Moaven died in 2012, leaving his widow, Gabriela Teixeira, and their two children as equal residuary beneficiaries. Four London properties stood in Abbas’s sole name.
Shortly before his death, while seriously ill in hospital, Abbas signed declarations of trust stating that he, his brother Amir and their mother had long owned the properties in equal shares. If that were right, two-thirds of the value would have fallen outside the estate, potentially leaving little for the widow and children.
The original executors were Amir, the family accountant and the family conveyancing solicitor. The court replaced them with independent administrators in 2020. The administrators were later allowed to pursue the ownership issue, alongside the family’s claim for reasonable financial provision under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (the 1975 Act).
The court held that the alleged long-standing arrangement had never existed. The declarations were shams: documents intended to give a misleading impression of rights, rather than to record the true position. The properties therefore remained in Abbas’s estate.
The important evidence was the documents’ history. The solicitor’s attendance notes showed that several alternative declarations, with inconsistent accounts of ownership, had been prepared and executed. The discussion concerned which version might withstand a challenge, not which was true. The court also relied on the lack of reliable contemporaneous evidence of shared ownership, tax returns prepared after death, inconsistent evidence elsewhere and an earlier pattern of using paperwork to protect assets from matrimonial claims.
The declarations were said only to confirm an existing arrangement. A false historical statement does not automatically make a document a sham, because it may still create rights for the future. However, where a document depends on an earlier arrangement that never existed, the false statement may be powerful evidence of an intention to mislead.
The family also argued that, if the declarations had created new interests, they could be set aside under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 as transactions intended to prejudice potential claims. The court said it would have granted that relief. It also considered that section 10 of the 1975 Act could assist where a transfer within six years of death was made to defeat a financial-provision claim. No order was needed because the documents were shams.
Personal representatives will often stay neutral in a dispute between beneficiaries. That is different from a dispute about whether an asset belongs to the estate. Their duty is to collect in and protect estate assets. In the right case, that requires investigation and litigation.
In Teixeira, the court accepted that the independent administrators could support the challenge. Ownership of the properties was central to the estate’s value and their ability to protect it. On these facts, they might have been wrong to stand aside.
This matters where a claimant is impecunious. Replacing conflicted executors can secure an independent investigation by administrators who may pursue a claim for the estate. It is not litigation funding, and the administrators’ duty is to the estate, not an individual claimant.
However, their involvement may be decisive where a well-supported claim could restore substantial assets. An application should identify the conflict, assets at risk, evidence to investigate and a proportionate scope of work. Unnecessary intervention may have costs consequences.
The deceased's brother, accountant and solicitor were ordered to pay relevant costs on the indemnity basis, jointly and severally in substantial part. This is more favourable to the receiving party than the usual basis, but does not guarantee recovery of every pound spent.
The court held that creating documents intended to mislead the court had caused the trial. A person who knows the truth and stands by while an untrue case is advanced may also face serious costs consequences. Payments on account included £154,800 towards the family’s costs, a further £17,221 payable by Amir alone, and £318,880 towards the administrators’ trial costs. The administrators could not, at that stage, recover costs relating only to general estate administration.
A sham allegation must be evidence-led. It is a serious allegation and should be pleaded clearly. The strongest material will often be the document’s provenance: adviser attendance notes, earlier drafts, correspondence and records from the time the alleged arrangement began.
Test the reality behind the document. Obtain Land Registry documentation, purchase information such as completion statements and deeds, mortgage documentation, bank statements, rental records and receipts as well as tax and company records. Establish who paid for the asset, controlled it, received its income and met its liabilities. Distinguish genuinely contemporaneous evidence from material created later to support a dispute. In Teixeira, tax returns appeared helpful until it emerged they had been prepared after death to match the declarations.
Keep alternative arguments open. Consider whether the document is genuinely confirmatory, whether it created a new interest, and whether the 1975 Act or Insolvency Act offers an alternative remedy if a sham cannot be proved.
Act promptly where executors are conflicted. Failure to account, unexplained income or assets, and prolonged inaction are warning signs. Independent administrators may protect the estate and assess whether proceedings are justified.
Teixeira shows that signed documents are not conclusive. A carefully prepared case, based on the true history of ownership and supported by independent administration where needed, can bring wrongly excluded assets back into an estate.
For more information on this article, please contact Thomas Middlehurst.
We produce a range of insights and publications to help keep our clients up-to-date with legal and sector developments.
Sign up
