[2025] EWCA Civ 1211

Fecha: 30-Sep-2025

The grounds of appeal

18.

NIOC sought permission to appeal on numerous grounds, but permission was granted by Males LJ on only the following grounds:

(1)

The judge was wrong to conclude that a document signed by an agent cannot amount to “writing signed by some person who is able to declare such trust or by his will” for the purposes of s.53(1)(b) (“Ground 1”).

(2)

Even if the judge was right in his interpretation of s.53(1)(b), he was wrong to conclude that the documents which he found constituted declarations of trust were not signed by NIOC. They were so signed, on the basis of either (a) the common law, (b) s.44 of the Companies Act 2006 (the “2006 Act”), or (c) s.74(4) LPA 1925 (“Ground 2”).

(3)

Even if the judge was right to find that there was no document which satisfied the requirements of s.53(1)(b), he was wrong to find that the consequence was that NIOC and the Fund could not rely on the trust which had (on the judge’s findings) been declared (“Ground 3”).

19.

NIOC was also given permission on its seventh ground of appeal, that there was no proper basis for making the order under s.423, on the basis that this is entirely parasitic on the other grounds. The Fund appeals, also with the permission of Males LJ, on the same ground as NIOC’s Ground 1.

20.

CGC, by a respondent’s notice, seeks to uphold the judge’s order on the following additional bases:

(1)

The judge’s conclusion that the effect of non-compliance with s.53(1)(b) is that the trust cannot be enforced against a third party creditor of CGC should be upheld on the additional ground that the trust is invalid (“Respondent’s Notice Point 1”);

(2)

The appeal should also fail because:

(a)

The judge was wrong to find that the Mortgage Documents were sufficient to constitute a declaration of trust (“Respondent’s Notice Point 2(a)”) and

(b)

The judge failed to consider whether NTT or Eversheds had authority to declare a trust over NIOC House and, had he done so, he ought to have concluded that they did not have such authority (“Respondent’s Notice Point 2(b)”).