David Mold, a member of Five Paper’s Private Client team, has provided the below case summary for Teixeira v Moaven [2026] EWHC 1215 Ch. & [2026] EWHC 1215 (Ch)
This case concerned four Declarations of Trust made by the deceased shortly before his death. They concerned four London properties that were legally registered in his sole name. The declarations stated that the properties were held in equal one-third shares for the deceased, his brother, and their mother. If the trusts were valid, this would have substantially reduced the value of the deceased’s estate available to his wife and their two children (who were the beneficiaries under his will).
The question for the court was whether the declarations genuinely recorded pre-existing beneficial interests or whether they were sham documents created shortly before the deceased’s death to make his estate appear smaller.
The deceased’s wife argued that the deceased had always been the sole beneficial owner of the properties and that the declarations were designed to prevent her and the children from benefiting from his assets. The brother and mother argued that the properties had long been subject to an informal family arrangement under which they each owned a one-third share.
The court examined the contemporaneous evidence, including solicitor’s attendance notes, the circumstances in which the declarations were prepared, the parties’ financial contributions and their conduct over the years. There was insufficient credible evidence that the brother or mother had acquired beneficial interests in the properties before the declarations were signed.
The alleged long-standing arrangement was not supported by reliable contemporary evidence.
The court concluded that the Declarations of Trust were shams under the principles established in Snook v London and West Riding Investments Ltd. They were not intended genuinely to create or confirm the beneficial interests they purported to describe.
The court made orders for indemnity costs and payments on account against the deceased’s brother, solicitor and accountant on the basis that they had enabled and stood by whilst a false case was brought to court.
The key practical take aways from this case are:
Independent administrators may need to take an active role where necessary to protect estate assets, rather than simply remaining neutral in disputes between beneficiaries.
The need for reliable contemporaneous evidence.