The England and Wales High Court (EWHC) has permitted the family of the late Al-Hasib Al Mahmood to appeal its decision in the significant deathbed gift case, Rahman v Hassan (2024 EWHC 1290 Ch), as reported by STEP.
Masudur Rahman, the claimant, asserted that his 82-year-old friend, Al-Hasib Al Mahmood, transferred all his UK assets to him during the week preceding his death in October 2020. Amid the second COVID-19 lockdown, Al Mahmood was unable to secure witnesses for a new will. His will writer, unaware of the temporary legislation allowing remote witnessing, received a text message from Al Mahmood revoking his 2015 will and naming Rahman as the sole beneficiary. This included several bank accounts, various chattels, and a registered house.
The only living witnesses to these gifts were Rahman and his wife. Al Mahmood’s family, the original beneficiaries under the 2015 will, contested their validity. Nonetheless, the EWHC ruled that the gifts were valid donationes mortis causa (Rahman v Hassan, 2024 EWHC 1290 Ch).
This judgment was perceived by some law firms as resolving the ambiguity about whether registered land could be transferred via a donatio mortis causa. While it was established that unregistered land could be gifted through deed handovers, the Rahman ruling indicated that handing over the land certificate for the house sufficed to part with ‘dominion,’ according to Mishcon de Reya.
However, the defendants have cast doubt on this interpretation by securing permission to appeal. Their appeal questions whether land certificates or lease copies serve as indicia of title, as the EWHC held, rather than merely evidence of ownership. They argue the court erroneously treated the transfer of dominion and indicia of title as a matter of evidence of intention, contending that intention to gift is a separate requirement for a deathbed gift.
Other appeal grounds challenge whether online bank account passwords and bank cards, which Rahman possessed, constitute indicia of title. Additionally, they question the EWHC’s conclusion that Al Mahmood could not have memorised all his account details, thus parting with dominion over his bank accounts and related assets.
The EWHC emphasised the importance of hearing the appeal due to the novel issues it raises regarding bank accounts and registered land, recognizing that the decision will set a significant precedent.
“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,” the court stated (Rahman v Hassan, 2024 EWHC 2038 Ch).
