|
The claimaint contended that the doctrine of proprietary estoppel could not in any
event be relied upon in the circumstances of the present case to circumvent the
requirements of s.2(1) Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 regarding
the need for any such agreement to be in writing.
It was clear from the decision of the Court of Appeal in Yaxley v Gotts (2000) Ch
162 that the precise relationship between proprietary estoppel and s.2 of the 1989
Act had yet to be definitively stated. The claimant lost his application.
Moloo and his near relative Ladak, had forged bank mandates to preclude any of the
true directors of Standish from having access to the company bank account. Lancelot
Henderson QC sitting as High Court Judge stated: 'It would be wrong of me to ignore
dishonesty on the part of Mr Moloo...particularly bearing in mind the deceit that
Mr. Moloo admits having practiced in relation the Bank Mandate...' Upon further
investigation for trial Mr. Salim Moloo and Mr. Anwar Ladak were found to be deeply
dishonest. They had been involved in a highly organized scheme to carry out deception
upon the defendant and the authorities by creating fraudulent accounts and furnishing
such documents to the company auditor. More frighteningly, the pair appeared to
be involved in an International Money Laundering operation.
|