Judge Paul Matthews, sitting in the High Court, handed down a judgment on August 1 that stripped the defendants of their ability to challenge the core asset transfer without first coughing up £259,725.29. It’s a steep price for a legal fight that started with a simple question: did a dying man give away his wealth, or did his family take it? The court sided with Masudur Rahman, finding that the transactions constituted donationes mortis causa—essentially, gifts made because death was looming.
The dispute centers on assets allegedly gifted on October 15 and 20, 2020. Rahman didn’t just want the money; he wanted the property. The court awarded him two flats, a decision Judge Matthews deemed more valuable than the original settlement offer from January 2023, which had included furniture and personal effects. The judge noted the flats were worth significantly more, making the outcome at least as advantageous as what Rahman initially proposed. This finding was pivotal. It meant Rahman was the successful party, even if he didn’t win every single item on his list.
But the story isn’t over. The defendants are fighting back, though their path is narrowed. Judge Matthews granted permission to appeal on only five of the eight grounds they raised. Grounds two, three, four, five, and eight raised novel legal questions about how to apply the doctrine of gifts in contemplation of death to registered land and digital assets like online banking passwords. The judge dismissed the others, finding no real prospect of success. It’s a partial victory, but one that keeps the case alive.
The financial bite is immediate. The court dismissed Rahman’s request to increase his costs budget, which stood at £320,648.50 plus VAT. Yet, he still walked away with a substantial interim payment. The defendants must pay the £259,725.29 within 14 days. If they miss that deadline, they lose their chance to appeal. And if they do pursue the appeal on ground eight—the one about digital assets—they must pay 50% of Rahman’s appeal costs, win or lose. The judge also limited Rahman’s right to an account of the estate to only the assets found to have been given to him, dismissing his claim for interest on £650,000 but ordering that interest earned on the relevant accounts be accounted for.
The next move belongs to the defendants. They have 14 days to wire the money. If they do, the case heads to the Court of Appeal, where the novel questions about digital assets and registered land will be tested. For now, Rahman holds the flats and a significant portion of his legal fees. The legal battle continues, but the financial burden has shifted decisively to those who challenged the dying man’s last wishes.