Rahme v Smith & Williamson Trust Corporation Ltd, Court of Appeal - Chancery Division, April 30, 2009, [2009] EWHC 911 (Ch)
Linked as:
Extract
Rahme v Smith & Williamson Trust Corporation Ltd, Court of Appeal - Chancery Division, April 30, 2009, [2009] EWHC 911 (Ch)
Neutral Citation Number: [2009] EWHC 911 (Ch)
Case No: HC06C02169IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICECHANCERY DIVISIONRoyal Courts of JusticeStrand, London, WC2A 2LLDate: 30/04/2009Before :MR JUSTICE MORGAN- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Between :- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Ronald Rahme the Claimant, in PersonMr Andrew De La Rosa (instructed by Macfarlanes) for the DefendantHearing dates: 25th, 26th, 27th, 30th, 31st March & 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 6th, 7th, 8th April 2009- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -JudgmentMr Justice Morgan: The case in outline1. Stephen Voice married Lisa Voice (née Rosen) in 1985. They had two children, a son born in 1986 and a daughter born in 1989. The marriage was not happy, at any rate in later years. On the 7th July 1999, Mrs Voice petitioned for divorce. She applied for an injunction requiring Mr Voice to leave the matrimonial home and such an order was made on the 23rd November 1999. A decree nisi of divorce was made on 7th February 2000 and the decree was made absolute on 21st March 2000. 2. Mr Voice was acquainted with the Claimant, Ronald Rahme, who lived in a flat in Wimbledon. In around March 2000, Mr Voice contacted Mr Rahme and as a result of their discussions, Mr Voice came to live in Mr Rahme's flat. Mr Voice wished to make a claim against Mrs Voice for financial provision under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. Mrs Voice was a wealthy woman. Mr Rahme had previous dealings with solicitors, namely, C P Christou of London N12. Mr Rahme introduced Mr Voice to Mr Christou of that firm and Mr Christou thereafter acted for Mr Voice in relation to his claim for financial provision. Mr Rahme was involved with Mr Voice in taking advice from Mr Christou on the claim. Mr Voice agreed to pay to Mr Rahme 25% of the sum which Mr Voice received from Mrs Voice by way of settlement of the claim for financial provision. 3. The claim for financial provision was eventually settled. On 18th July 2001, Mr and Mrs Voice agreed a consent order providing for Mrs Voice to pay to Mr Voice a lump sum of £2,500,000. On the 20th July 2001, Mr and Mrs Voice signed a deed providing for Mr Voice to transfer to Mrs Voice his shares in a Cayman Island company called Coastline Property Co Limited in return for a payment to Mr Voice of £285,000. On 30th July 2001, Mrs Voice duly paid Mr Voice the sums which had been agreed. The Defendant says that Mr Voice paid Mr Rahme some £695,000, which was approximately 25% of the sums received by Mr Voice by way of the divorce settlement. Mr Rahme admits receipt of £695,000 but says that this payment was for something else.4. The Defendant also says that Mr Rahme, unbeknown to Mr Voice, had agreed with Mrs Voice that she would pay Mr Rahme £225,000 in certain circumstances. On 1st August 2001, Mrs Voice gave Mr Rahme a cheque for that sum. On the same day, Mrs Voice paid Mr Rahme £15,000 in cash; this was said to be in respect of legal expenses payable to Mr Christou.5. Mr Voice died intestate on 22nd June 2003. The Defendant, Smith & Williamson Trust Corporation Limited were granted letters of administration on 20th August 2004. After Mr Voice's death, Mr Rahme began making claims against Mrs Voice for monies said to be due to Mr Rahme, initially from Mr Voice and then from his estate. 6. Mr Rahme contended that Mr Voice had never paid him the 25% due to him of the sums received by way of the divorce settlement. Mr Rahme also contended that he had lent very substantial sums of money to Mr Voice which had not been repaid and were therefore outstanding. Mr Rahme also claimed rent for the flat in Wimbledon pursuant to what were said to be signed tenancy agreements in favour of Mr Voice. Mr Rahme also claimed sums which were said to be agreed by Mr Voice for damage to the flat and its contents and for a large quantity of valuable wines and spirits consumed by Mr Voice. The estate of Mr Voice denied liability in relation to all of the claims made by Mr Rahme and Mr Rahme commenced the present proceedings on 30th May 2006. The Defendant has counterclaimed for payment to it of the £225,000 and the £15,000 which was said to have been received by Mr Rahme from Mrs Voice. The Defendant has also counterclaimed for repayment of the £695,000 paid by Mr Voice to Mr Rahme.Mr Rahme's claims7. I will refer to Mr Rahme's claims in the order in which they are pleaded in the Particulars of Claim.8. The first claim is for unpaid rent for the period 5th April 2000 to 31st December 2003. This claim relates to Flat 5, 6 The Drive, Wimbledon. The registered title to Flat 5 was not in Mr Rahme's name as it was in the name of a Miss Janine Ludewig. However, Mr Rahme says that he was the beneficial owner of Flat 5. Mr Rahme relies on two tenancy agreements said to have been entered into between himself and Mr Voice. The first written tenancy agreement is dated 27th December 2000 and relates to ...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
