Mumtaz Bano v Nadia Zaheer

1. This is my judgment on (a) Dr Zaheer’s Form AP1 application to register a TR1 dated 5 June 2023 by which her aunt the late Ms Begum purportedly gratuitously transferred 163 Ilkeston Road, Nottingham (“the Property”) to her, and (b) Ms Bano’s T410 application to set aside that TR1 for undue influence. Ms Bano is Ms Begum’s sole surviving sister.

2. Notwithstanding the lengthy pleadings and large number of documents in the Trial Bundle, this matter was made relatively simple by both counsels’ sensible and helpful presentation of their clients’ cases. I am grateful to them.

3. In short, Dr Zaheer says Ms Begum had full understanding of what she was doing when executing the TR1 of her own free will. Ms Bano’s case is that the relationship of trust between Dr Zaheer and Ms Begum and the circumstances of the transfer were such that a presumption of undue influence arose and Dr Zaheer has failed to rebut it.

4. In closing, counsel agreed that: 4.1 On its face, the TR1 was properly executed – Mr Sandham somewhat reluctantly, but rightly in my view, conceded this albeit subject to the undue influence issue. 4.2 On the facts, a presumption of undue influence arose – Mr Ward sensibly conceded that there was a relationship of trust between Ms Begum and Dr Zaheer and that the circumstances of the nil-consideration transfer called for an explanation. 4.3 The core issue for me to determine, therefore, is whether Dr Zaheer has re-butted the presumption.

5. There was no dispute as to the applicable law, with Mr Ward agreeing the summary set out within Mr Sandham’s Skeleton Argument and which I summarise as follows: 5.1 Presumed undue influence arises where (a) there is a relationship of trust and confidence or vulnerability between the parties to a transaction, and (b) the transaction calls for an explanation - i.e. the transaction in question is not readily explicable by the ordinary motives of ordinary persons in that relationship. See RBS plc v Etridge (No. 2) . 5.2 The law of undue influence is principally a matter of public policy and not so much concerned with dishonest or wrongful acts. The Court examines the circumstances in which the relevant transaction took place and the nature of the continuing relationship between the parties, rather than any specific act or conduct on the part of the donee; a transaction may be set aside even though the conduct of the benefitting party could not be criticised as wrongful – Pesticcio v Huet @ 20. 5.3 Once the elements of undue influence are found to be present, the evidential burden shifts to donee to rebut the presumption; this requires evidence “that the donor was acting independently of any influence from the donee and with the full appreciation of what he was doing” – Inche Noriah v Shaik Allie Bin Omar @ 135. This is commonly done by showing that the donor took competent and independent legal advice. It can also be rebutted by showing the decision was made independently; the core requirement being that the donor exercised free and independent judgment when entering the transaction. 5.4 Since it is Ms Bano who has brought the set-aside application, the burden of proof is on her to the civil standard (i.e. the balance of probabilities), save as aforesaid with regard to rebutting the presumption.

6. Most of the facts are not disputed (and most of this chronology I take from Mr Sandham’s Skeleton with Mr Ward having indicated his agreement to it): 1990-2022 Ms Begum endured a range of physical and mental illnesses as disclosed by her medical records. 9.9.2020 Dr Zaheer applied to be registered as Ms Begum’s carer. She explained in oral evidence that this was so that she could take care of Covid-related matters such as vaccinations when Ms Begum was staying with her in London. 31.10.2022 Ms Begum was diagnosed with heart failure (there was further diagnosis on 9.2.2023). 24 February Ms Begum’s GP referred her to a cardiology department. By 2 June Dr Zaheer had engaged Ellis-Fermor & Negus Solicitors to act for her (not Ms Begum) on the transfer of the Property. 2 June Ms Begum had become unwell and went by ambulance to Queen’s Medical Centre. The admission summary sent to her GP noted “Crew unable to complete a BFAST examination as patient does not understand very much English.” 2 June Ellis-Fermor & Negus wrote to Ms Begum at the Property enclosing, inter alia, a TR1 for the Property at nil consideration, a waiver of Mr Begum’s right to be independently advised, a draft Statutory Declaration of Solvency and a Land Registry Form ID1. The letter asked Ms Begum to sign the TR1 in front of an independent adult witness (also to sign), attest to the Statutory Declaration in front of a solicitor, have her identity verified by a solicitor and sign and return the certificate that she had decided not to take independent legal advice. 5 June Dr Zaheer travelled from home in London to Nottingham to see Ms Begum in hospital. She then went to the Property to do the laundry and collect the paperwork for the transfer. Dr Zaheer spent the night at the hospital. 5 June Ms Begum executed the TR1 with her signature witnessed by a nurse Sonia Francis. Ms Bano unsuccessfully sought Ms Francis’s attendance at trial. Dr Zaheer also signed the TR1 and her signature was witnessed by Mr Qamar. 6 June By/on this date, Dr Zaheer had caused the production of a draft will in digital form, using an on-line service, in which Ms Begum purported to bequeath the Property (notwithstanding the TR1 executed the previous day) and all her assets to Dr Zaheer. Dr Zaheer stayed overnight at Mr Qamar’s house and during this time they printed a copy of the will at the local library. 7 June Ms Begum signed the will. Mr Qamar and Mr Ahmad signed it to confirm that they had witnessed her signature. It is agreed that this will is invalid because Mr Qamar had signed whilst in the hospital car park prior to it being put before Ms Begum to sign (in his absence). 14 June Dr Zaheer suggested Ms Bano’s daughter, Neva Rizwan, defer visiting until 16 June. 16 June Tanveer Moughal, a solicitor, attended Ms Begum in hospital and executed the Statutory Declaration and Form ID1. More of this later. ? Date not known but see the firm’s email sent 4 June 2025 at page 141 of Trial Bundle. Ellis-Fermor & Negus received back the papers signed by Ms Begum. The firm’s email sent 4 June 2025 shows that the firm thought (a) Ms Begum had independent legal advice on the TR1 and that it had been signed in the presence of a solicitor not connected to that firm, and (b) the ID1 for Ms Begum was witnessed by the same independent solicitor who had witnessed the TR1. 23 June Ms Begum passed away. 25 June Dr Zaheer emailed the will to Ms Bano’s daughter (Niva Rizwan) and added “I understand that you have already received a copy of the property transfer letter, witnessed by a solicitor in person, dated 16 June 2023.” Dr Zaheer attended the Property to change the locks. 28 June Ms Bano entered a caveat. 11 August Ms Bano’s solicitors wrote to Dr Zaheer enquiring as to circumstances in which will was signed. Dr Zaheer did not respond to this or a chaser. Feb 2024 Dr Zaheer applied for probate. 24 Oct 2024 Ellis-Fermor & Negus applied on Dr Zaheer’s behalf to register the TR1. 22 November Ms Bano objected. 28 November IDR Law wrote on behalf of Dr Zaheer enclosing the TR1 and asserting an inter-vivos transfer meaning the Property was not part of Ms Begum’s estate.

7. There is one more piece of evidence that Ms Bano relies upon that must be explained here which is an undated transcript of an audio recording made of a conversation between Dr Zaheer and a Mr Haq. Ms Bano did not give any real detail as to how the recording was made but it was transcribed, disclosed and pleaded. During this conversation, Dr Zaheer and Mr Haq discuss the transfer, which they refer to as “Plan A”, and the will, which they refer to as “Plan B”. Dr Zaheer says that she thinks the “will is okay because it follows all the solicitor’s law” and then referring to the transfer “That’s gone through. I didn’t want to stop that. But I did stop that because... because you felt weak because of the will. The will doesn’t mean much because I knew that it might be challenged because that’s Plan B. Plan B... Plan A... transfer needs to go through.” Dr Zaheer’s Statement of Case pleads, inter alia, that the conversation took place on 25 June 2023 in an open family With Mr Qamar and Ms Bano’s daughter and son-in- law also present. conversation taking place at a difficult time and has been grossly mischaracterised. The use of “Plan A” and “Plan B” was informal and colloquial in “a reactive discussion about how to honour [Ms Begum’s] wishes... and not in any premeditated or fraudulent context.”

8. I heard oral evidence from Mr Mazar Ahmad, Mrs Shahida Umar and Ms Nazia Nazim on behalf of Ms Bano (who did not give evidence). Mr Ahmad’s evidence was that he had known Ms Begum for over 50 years and they had visited each other regularly. He knew that she had two nieces but Ms Begum had only mentioned one of them, Niva, to him. He was not aware of the other one’s name but met “Nadia” for the first time at Ms Begum’s funeral. He confirmed Ms Begum had “a limited knowledge of English; he had to help her translate documents, fill out forms and arrange repairs at the Property. He was cross-examined briefly as to his knowledge of the two nieces: he had known that there were two in London since a long time ago. He confirmed that he sent the WhatsApp messages to be found on page 173 of the Trial Bundle.

9. Mrs Umar’s evidence was that she had known Ms Begum for more than 45 years and they had become very close and would meet regularly. Ms Begum was “very close” to and had “always spoken very highly of Mrs Bano... and considered her like a daughter”. Ms Begum had never mentioned Dr Zaheer and she had never met her until the day of Ms Begum’s funeral. Ms Begum’s understanding of English “was very weak and someone always needed to translate for her, be it verbal conversations or documents for her to understand fully.”

10. Mr Ward’s cross-examination opened with questions about the address given on her Witness Statement, “1 Wellington Close”, and how when Mr Sandham asked for her to confirm her address, she had given “16 Wellington Close”. Mrs Umar explained that she lives at No. 16 and her daughter at No. 1. She had started by living at No. 1 and then moved to No. 16 but could not remember dates. On the back of this, Mr Ward then suggested that Mrs Umar might have simply forgotten Ms Begum mentioning Dr Zaheer. Mrs Umar said that she was quite sure that Dr Zaheer had never been mentioned. She did go on to concede that her memory was not as good these days and that she does sometime forget things. Lastly, she confirmed that her third last paragraph was as a result of Ms Bano asking her “Do you know Dr Zaheer?”

11. Nazia Nazim’s evidence, both written and under cross-examination, was that she had known Ms Begum for over 20 years as neighbours in Ilkeston Road and “shared a close association”. She had helped Ms Begum with household tasks such as grocery shopping and attending hospital. Ms Begum was particularly close to Mrs Bano but had never mentioned Dr Zaheer. Ms Begum had limited proficiency in English and frequently required support in understanding written material including letters. She would often accompany Ms Begum to medical appointments to ensure that she understood the advice that she was being given.

12. I heard oral evidence from Dr Zaheer and her witnesses Mr Zahuralhaq Qamar, Ms Nergis Ahmed and Tanveer Moughal. One of her witnesses Azar Ahmad was expected to give evidence but failed to attend with no explanation given and I will give no weight to his written evidence.

13. Dr Zaheer confirmed that the contents of her Statement of Case and Witness Statement were true. The Statement of Case is a curious document running to 187 paragraphs over 27 pages which, she explained when being cross-examined, had been drafted with the help of Artificial Intelligence. She described herself as a “data scientist” , not a medical doctor . I mention this as an aside because her Witness Statement was more argument than a statement setting out what Dr Zaheer has witnessed first-hand.

14. Dr Zaheer’s evidence in chief was as follows. Her relationship with her aunt Ms Begum was one of love, support and care. She had been her aunt’s registered carer during the Covid pandemic and cared for her during several years of ill-health including the heart condition that turned out to be the cause of her death. They had a “close maternal bond”. Ms Begum had made a “conscious, considered and lucid decision” to transfer the Property to Dr Zaheer and appoint her as her sole beneficiary and executor. This was the “culmination of ongoing discussions between [Ms Begum] and her close trusted family and friends over the course of May and June 2023”. The TR1 was signed and witnessed on 5 June 2023 in the presence of a nurse and a family friend and later verified by an independent solicitor through a Form ID1 on 16 June 2023. A valid will was executed and witnessed on 7 June 2023. Ms Begum was not vulnerable or isolated and had made her intentions known to “multiple individuals, including a psychologist, close family members and trusted friends well in advance of executing” them. Ms Begum had signed the waiver of legal advice without duress or misunderstanding. Ms Begum’s transfer of the Property was a voluntary lifetime gift of residence and primary asset but she would continue to live there. Ms Bano’s claim “has been driven... by a pattern of harassment and bad faith” with Rizwan Bashir being the prime motivator. As regards the late filing of the TR1, this was due to her solicitor’s advice that this could not be done until probate had been granted. This did not happen until October 2024 when one of the two firms she had instructed advised her to proceed.

15. Dr Zaheer was cross-examined at some length. She agreed that Ms Begum’s heart problems arose in about February 2023 and that she (Dr Zaheer) had instructed Ellis-Fermor & Negus Solicitors around the end of May. But this was not because of Ms Begum’s failing health; she was just doing what Ms Begum had instructed her to do. She accepted that this firm was acting for herself and not for Ms Begum; the firm had told her that she needed a solicitor as the proposed recipient of the Property. Dr Zaheer understood that if Ms Begum did not sign the waiver, she ought to have independent legal advice. This had led to the firm’s letter to Ms Begum dated 2 June 2023 asking her to sign the various transfer-related forms. Dr Zaheer had collected this from Ms Begum’s home on 5 June when she arrived in Nottingham. First, she had seen Ms Begum at the hospital and then Mr Qamar had driven her to the Property so that she could do the laundry, collect some clothes and the paperwork. She did not wait to get the paperwork done because Ms Begum wanted her to get on with it. When it was put to her that she was in a hurry to get the paperwork done because she feared Ms Begum might be about to die, Dr Zaheer said that in fact she expected Ms Begum to be discharged.

16. Dr Zaheer accepted that Ellis-Fermor & Negus’ letter was in English and would, therefore, need translating to Ms Begum. She did this with Mr Qamar present. It had not occurred to her to tell the firm about Ms Begum’s poor English. She also accepted that Ms Begum had not had legal advice and that her own solicitor, Debs Bowler, was under the impression that she had and that the TR1 was signed in the presence of a solicitor (see email sent 4 June 2025 at page 141 of the Trial Bundle). Dr Zaheer thought that Ms Bowler was referring to the Declaration of Solvency but agreed that she had not replied to correct Ms Bowler. She denied that she had switched from Plan B, being the will, to Plan A, being the TR1, when it had become apparent that the will was invalid because Mr Qamar had signed it improperly. This change of approach was upon her solicitors’ advice.

17. As for the will, she had not been able to find a solicitor to help with drafting it, so turned to “makeawillonline.com” (or something like that). She filled in a questionnaire whilst at Mr Qamar’s house on 6 June 2023. She stayed with him overnight and they had the will printed at a local library the next day. She then read the will, written in English, over the telephone to Ms Begum and then took it to her in hospital. Mr Qamar witnessed the will whilst in the car – they had trouble finding a parking space – before Dr Zaheer took it up to Ms Begum. This was okay because Mr Qamar knew what Ms Begum’s intentions were. Dr Zaheer then explained that she was in a rush to get back to London for a GP appointment at 6 pm. She was not in a rush to get the paperwork signed; she just wanted to carry out Ms Begum’s wishes. She did not think Ms Begum was about to die. Dr Zaheer accepted that the circumstances called for an explanation but maintained that she had given one. The only person that Ms Begum had not told of her intention to gift the Property was Ms Bano.

18. Mr Qamar’s evidence was that he was a distant relative and close friend of Ms Begum and had known her over 20 years. About a month prior to her admission to hospital she had made known her intentions to leave the Property to Dr Zaheer, who is also a distant relative and whom he had also known for over 20 years. He confirmed that he had seen the will on a tablet device at the hospital on 6 June and told Ms Begum what it said. She had confirmed that it reflected her intentions and asked him to witness it. He confirmed what Dr Zaheer had said about her staying the night of 7 June with him and printing the will and attending at the hospital with him signing it in the car.

19. In cross-examination, he was unable to confirm Dr Zaheer’s evidence that he had driven her from the hospital to the Property; he had no memory of this. Counsel asked him to look at a copy of the will but he seemed unsure of what he was looking at and spent quite some time reading through it before saying “I don’t remember seeing this document.” When pressed further, he confirmed that it bore his signature. He told me he could not remember the trustees and so on but claimed that he did read it back then. He had forgotten the detail of it. He had signed it in the car in good faith and accepted that he had not seen Ms Begum sign it. Although he thought Ms Begum could read English, he accepted that he had read it to her in Urdu. He had not gone up to Ms Begum’s hospital room because he was confident that he knew her wishes. As for the TR1, he had not explained it to Ms Begum and thought it was part of the will process. Later he had made an appointment for a solicitor to visit Ms Begum in hospital. He could not remember whether he had told the solicitor that the will had already been executed; he had simply been concerned to make the appointment and thought the solicitor would know what to do. He did not know why the solicitor had said that Ms Begum had told her that she had not made a will.

20. Nergus Ahmed’s written evidence was that she had first met Ms Begum in 1986 when she had moved next door to her. They became close as neighbours and friends, sharing meals and checking-in on each other. Ms Begum spoke fondly of Dr Zaheer and considered her more a daughter than a niece. In cross-examination, she admitted that her Witness Statement had been prepared by her sending a voice message in Urdu to her nephew for typing up and had then signed it on her mobile telephone. No one had told her what to say. When asked to read her Witness Statement, she said she could read some of the words but did not understand or know some of them. For example, she did not know what the heading “Family Dynamics and Reflections” meant. She said her nephew had explained it to her. There was no Urdu copy.

21. Lastly, Mrs Moughal gave evidence. She qualified as a solicitor in 2010 and is a consultant at AMH Solicitors. In her written evidence she said that initially she was contacted by Mr Qamar but in cross-examination corrected this to Dr Zaheer making contact on 6 June 2023. Dr Zaheer had given her Mr Qamar’s contact details and she had got in touch with him to arrange an appointment. She had asked Mr Qamar for photographic proof of identity and evidence of address for Ms Begum and what forms needed to be witnessed and confirmed her fee of £40 cash on the day. On 16 June, she met Mr Qamar at the hospital where he gave her the various documents. Dr Zaheer was not present; the original enquiry had been to meet the following day, 7 June, as Dr Zaheer wanted to be present and have the documents signed before she left Nottingham but Mrs Moughal’s 48 hour ring-back policy had prevented this.

22. Mrs Moughal had been with Ms Begum for roughly 20 minutes and had only kept a very brief attendance note as she had not given any advice save insofar as necessary to explain the Declaration of Solvency. She spoke with Ms Begum in Urdu. The TR1, the waiver and the ID1 had already been completed save that the latter needed Ms Begum’s date of birth and the current date. She said that she “did not have the benefit of the TR1” (by which I take it that she did not read it) and she did not go through it or the waiver with Mr Begum. It was her writing at the foot of the Declaration of Solvency. If she had been there to give legal advice, it would have been a much longer meeting and she would have enquired as to Ms Begum’s circumstances in some detail. In any event, she had no questions as to Ms Begum’s capacity. At the end of the meeting, she asked Ms Begum whether she had a will and Ms Begum confirmed that she did not. Analysis & discussion

23. On the facts, and as sensibly conceded by Mr Ward, a presumption of undue influence arose. There was clearly a relationship of trust between Ms Begum and Dr Zaheer and the circumstances of the nil-consideration transfer of Ms Begum’s home which was, by a long way, principal asset, clearly call for an explanation. The question for me to determine is whether Dr Zaheer has provided a satisfactory explanation.

24. First, I assess the witnesses. I found Mr Ahmad, Mrs Umar and Ms Nazim’s somewhat limited evidence credible and helpful. I accept what they say regarding being close to Ms Begum, her poor English language skills and having never heard her mention Dr Zaheer. What they say about Ms Begum’s English language skills is backed-up by (a) the hospital admission report in which it is written that the ambulance crew were unable to complete a “BFAST” examination (to identify a stroke?) because Ms Begum “does not understand very much English”, and (b) the fact that Mrs Moughal and Mr Qamar had to communicate with Ms Begum in Urdu.

25. I also found Mrs Moughal’s somewhat limited evidence credible and helpful. The reality is that she played no part in what happened vis-à-vis the transfer. Her part was limited to roughly 15-20 minutes on 16 June in order to complete the Form ID1 and the Declaration of Solvency. She made it very clear that she did not give Ms Begum legal advice and, in any event, Ms Begum had already signed the TR1 and waiver some nine days earlier. It was also helpful, as already indicated, to hear her evidence that Ms Begum’s “English was limited”. Lastly, I accept her evidence that she asked Ms Begum if she had a will and that the answer was “no” even though she had signed one on 7 June.

26. Given the circumstances of the preparation of Ms Ahmed’s Witness Statement, I am not prepared to accept her evidence. It was plain that she could not have read it so as to understand let alone approve the contents and this is not surprising given that it had been prepared via a voice message in Urdu to her nephew who then turned it into what was put before me. She signed it on her mobile telephone without having been able to check the contents.

27. I also found Mr Qamar’s evidence to be problematic. His failure to remember driving Dr Zaheer to and from the hospital on 5 June is of little importance but his inability to recognise the will and his insistence that it was okay to sign it absent from Ms Begum were concerning. There are also the matters of his, I find, close relationship with Dr Zaheer and the part he played in getting Ms Begum to sign, more on both below.

28. Turning to Dr Zaheer. I do not accept her (a) evidence as to Ms Begum signing the TR1 and the waiver independently of her and Mr Qamar’s influence and/or with a full appreciation of what she was doing, or (b) claim to have discharged the burden on her to give a satisfactory explanation: 28.1 The Property was Ms Begum’s home and by far and away her principal asset – I think that apart from the Property her estate amounted to her personal possessions and c. £12,000 in the bank. The transaction was manifestly to Ms Begum’s disadvantage – and all the more so because it did not secure Ms Begum the right to live in the Property for life - and this is a significant factor. 28.2 It was Dr Zaheer’s evidence that she was expecting Ms Begum to be discharged, not pass away. Notwithstanding this, the TR1 and the waiver were signed in great haste. Although Dr Zaheer had started the preparation of the paperwork in late May, upon hearing of Ms Begum’s hospitalisation she wasted no time in travelling north, collecting the paperwork from the Property and having Ms Begum sign both documents the very same day with Mr Qamar’s help. There was no satisfactory explanation for the great hurry, especially if Dr Zaheer really did think Ms Begum would soon be discharged. 28.3 Although it might be said that the preparation and executing of the will are a separate matter, the circumstances once again show indecent haste. The will was prepared in a hurry via an on-line service and executed two days later, again with Mr Qamar involved. And again, there was no obvious reason for the speed at which all this was done. 28.4 All of the documents put before and signed by Ms Begum were English. This is alarming given my finding that Ms Begum’s English language skills were poor. She was entirely reliant upon others to translate these documents to her and inform her as to their meaning and effect. 28.5 Ms Begum did not have independent legal advice before signing the waiver or the TR1. Dr Zaheer does not dispute this. What is extraordinary and most concerning is that Dr Zaheer arranged legal advice for herself alone. 28.6 The only evidence as to whether Ms Begum made an informed and uninfluenced decision comes from Dr Zaheer and Mr Qamar. Dr Zaheer is, of course, the only beneficiary and that alone is a ground for me to treat her evidence with caution given that she has every reason to say, as she does, that all was above-board. What of Mr Qamar’s evidence? He and Dr Zaheer are related by marriage and friends. They appear to be close. When Dr Zaheer arrived in Nottingham, he drove her to and from the hospital (at least that is Dr Zaheer’s account). He was involved with the signing of the TR1 (which he witnessed) and the preparation and witnessing of the will. Dr Zaheer stayed overnight at his house on 6 June whilst readying the will. Although it was his evidence in-chief that he read the will to Ms Begum, it was quite apparent when taken to it during cross-examination that that he was unfamiliar with the document save for his signature as witness on the last page. 28.7 There is also the issue of just how close Dr Zaheer and Ms Begum were. Dr Zaheer says it was a mother-daughter relationship but I prefer Mrs Umar and Ns Nazim’s evidence on this. It seems highly unlikely that they would never have heard of Dr Zaheer if her relationship with Ms Begum was as close as Dr Zaheer suggested. 28.8 It is also concerning and surprising that Ms Begum told Mrs Moughal that she did not have a will given that she had signed one about a week earlier. This very much raises the possibility that Ms Begum did not know what she had signed, especially as Mrs Moughal had no concerns about her capacity. 28.9 There is also the “Plan A” and “Plan B” conversation. Although I had little information as to how the conversation was recorded, Dr Zaheer did not deny that it had taken place or that in it she described the TR1 as “Plan A” and the will as “Plan B”. In the end, Dr Zaheer went with “Plan B” first and this seems to have been on her solicitors’ incorrect advice that the TR1 had to await probate. Then when it was realised that proving the will might be problematic, Dr Zaheer moved quickly with the TR1. Either the language is unfortunate or it suggests that Dr Zaheer very much planned to obtain the Property one way or the other and, having taken into account all of the above, I find, on the balance of probabilities, it to be the latter. 28.10 Lastly and as part of the overall picture, it is noteworthy that Dr Zaheer had led her solicitors, Ellis-Fermor & Negus, to believe that Ms Begum had received independent legal advice and had signed the TR1 in the presence of an independent solicitor. Conclusion and disposal

29. Accordingly, I find that Dr Zaheer has failed to rebut the presumption, that the TR1 is voidable and should be set aside and, therefore, I direct the Chief Land Registrar to cancel Dr Zaheer’s original application dated 24 October 2024 (made by a Form e-AP1 of the same date) for registration of the TR1 dated 5 June 2023. Costs

30. As regards costs, paragraph 9.1(b)(i) of the Land Registration Division’s Practice Direction provides that if the Tribunal decides to make an order about costs, ordinarily the unsuccessful party will be ordered to pay the successful party’s costs.

31. My preliminary view is that Ms Bano is entitled to payment by Dr Zaheer of her reasonable and proportionate costs (i.e. on the Standard Basis) since referral by the Registry to the Tribunal on 6 March 2025.

32. Accordingly, I direct: 32.1 By 5 pm on 3 March 2026, any party who wishes to make an application for costs should file and serve by email (a) written submissions on the principle of who should pay costs and upon what basis, and (b) an estimate of those costs. 32.2 If such a costs application is served, then by 5 pm 10 March 2025 the recipient of that application should file and serve their representations in response. 32.3 The party applying for costs may then file and serve a response by no later than 5 pm 17 March 2026. Re-dated this 19 th day of February 2026 Judge Alexander Bastin By Order of The Tribunal