Case No. UKUT-243-(LC)-UTLC-Case-Number:-LC-2022-147

44.The issue before the FTT was a binary one: either Muazzez signed the transfer or she did not. And on that point either Muazzez was lying or Mehmet was lying.45.The judge decided this point of credibility in favour of Muazzez. The second ground of appeal is that the judge failed to take account of significant parts of the evidence in reaching his conclusion on credibility or, if he did take account of it, he failed to give any explanation of how it was consistent with his conclusion. 46.The grant of permission to appeal went on to explain that it was troubling that the FTT’s decision did not make any finding about the fact that Muazzez gave evidence in other proceedings that she had signed a transfer of the property, or about the significance of that in relation to her credibility. Nor was any finding made about the evidence of Mr Houlous that Muazzez told him in 2016 that she had transferred the property to Mehmet, and of Sina Edhem, Mehmet’s wife, that Muazzez had said the same to her in January 2018 (in a conversation that was covertly recorded and the recording transcribed). There was no mention of the Metropolitan Police file which, according to Mehmet, provided evidence that Muazzez transferred the house to him.47.I approach this ground of appeal with caution, as I did the first, because credibility is an area where an appeal tribunal must be very wary of improper interference. The trial judge heard and saw the witnesses and was able to make an assessment of their truthfulness in a way that the appeal Tribunal cannot do. But the decision leaves unanswered questions: why did it not matter that Muazzez gave different evidence in other proceedings? How does the story of the visit to Streathers explain what Muazzez said in the other proceedings? Why did the judge think nothing turned on Sina’s evidence of an admission? The concern deepens when it is said that the same admission was made to a witness who is not mentioned at all.48.I am going to look first at what Mehmet says about Muazzez’s evidence, and then at Mr Connolly’s response. Muazzez’s evidence about what she did and did not sign49.It is Mehmet’s case in the appeal that Muazzez fabricated the visit to Streathers in order to cover up her admissions that she had transferred the property to him. The visit to Streathers is first mentioned in Muazzez’s witness statement of 19 October 2019, more than eighteen months after Muazzez and Isa reported the transfer to Action Fraud. 50.Mehmet set out in his skeleton argument a summary of the various accounts given by Muazzez and by Isa about the transfer of the property, as follows (I have paraphrased, but have used quotation marks where I have reproduced Mehmet’s wording):a.28 January 2018: the recording of Muazzez’s conversation with Sina indicates that Muazzez said she signed a transfer of the property to Mehmet.b.5 April 2018: Isa contacted Action Fraud by email and said that Muazzez signed a transfer of the property but had been told that it was a transfer to her three children.c.9 April 2018: Muazzez’s witness statement in the family court (see paragraph 17 above): “Mrs Edhem signed to transfer the Property to the sole name of Mehmet Edhem. These was no mention of Streathers or three children.”d.20 April 2018: an entry on the MPF records that Muazzez told the police that she signed a transfer of the property, but does not say to whom.e.11 September 2018: “Isa told police that Mrs Edhem signed something in Streathers but it was to do with her late husband’s affairs, and not a land registry document.”f.9 November 2018: Isa produced a timeline for HM Land Registry which statded that Muazzez visited Streathers on 27 May 2016 and signed a document to transfer the property to her three children.g.22 April 2019 Muazzez’s third witness statement said that she did not sign a transfer, and did not mention a visit to Streathers.h.21 October 2019 Muazzez’s fourth witness statement said that she did not sign a transfer, but visited Streathers in the week after her husband died and that she had signed a transfer of the property to her three children.51.The picture is certainly confusing.52.However, the picture looks very different once one adds two crucial events, not mentioned by Mehmet but pointed out by Mr Connolly as having emerged from the evidence given at the hearing.53.The first such event is that on 10 January 2018 Muazzez found out that 27 Netherford Road was registered in Mehmet’s name. 54.This emerges both from Muazzez’s Statement of Case in the FTT and from Isa’s witness statement; Isa explained that in January 2018 Muazzez told him that she was struggling for money because she was no longer getting rent from number 27. Isa obtained electronic copies of the register of title and discovered that Mehmet was the sole registered proprietor.55.The second such event is that on 27 April Muazzez first saw the form TR1 that she is said to have signed, and on seeing it said that it was not what she had signed. This emerged from Isa’s evidence at the hearing before the FTT and not from a witness statement; it seems that Isa sent for a copy of the transfer and that that was when it arrived. 56.If we add those two events to the sequence of accounts that Mehmet set out, and add some detail to those accounts to indicate their context, then a very different picture emerges. 57.The first significant event is Muazzez’s discovery in January 2018 that Mehmet was the sole owner of 27 Netherford Road. If it is true that in the week after her husband’s death she went with Mehmet to Streathers to have a document witnessed, and if it is true that she thought that what she signed was a transfer to her three children, then what she thought she had discovered in January 2018 was that she had been misled into signing a transfer to one child instead of three. Accordingly:a.That is why she told Sina on 28 January that she had signed the transfer to Mehmet. b.That is also why Isa, on Muazzez’s behalf, told Action Fraud in early April 2018 that she had been misled about the effect of a transfer she had signed.c.That explains her evidence to the Family Court, which Mehmet has summarised very briefly. It is worth reading Muazzez’s words:“I confirm to this Honourable Court that I consider that the Applicant (Mehmet) has committed a criminal fraud against me. He took advantage of my upset at the death of my husband and misled me into signing a document which I now know had the effect of transferring my property at 27 Netherford Road from my sole name to that of the Applicant. I have now reported this to the police, who I believe are investigating.”d.And that is why Muazzez (or Isa on her behalf) told the police that she signed a transfer of the property. 58.These accounts are all consistent with a situation where Muazzez thought she had discovered that she had been misled into signing what she thought was a transfer to three children but was in fact a transfer to one of them.59.That position changed if on 27 April 2018 Muazzez saw the transfer itself for the first time. As the judge put it, “as soon as she saw the Transfer which she was alleged to have signed in April 2018 her position changed immediately from ‘I believe I did sign a document which I believed transferred the property to all my children at Streathers’, to ‘I most certainly did not ever sign that document.’ ” What she said in her witness statement of 19 October 2019 was that the document she signed at Streathers had very little text on it and cannot have been a transfer of the property.60.From that point on Muazzez’s account was therefore a different one. She was no longer saying she was misled about the significance of the transfer she signed; she was saying that she did not sign the transfer of 27 May 2016. That is what she said in her first two witness statements made for HM Land Registry, on 5 May and 2 September 2018, before the referral of her application to the FTT. Neither statement refers to Streathers because Muazezz now knew that she had not signed a transfer on that occasion and so the Streathers visit was irrelevant. The further accounts made by Muazzez and Isa on the occasions listed by Mehmet are consistent with this:e.The MPF entry on 11 September 2018 records that Isa asked the police to re-open their file. It had been closed on the basis that there was no fraud since Muazzez admitted having signed a transfer (as we noted at point d in paragraph 57 d above). Isa now asked the police to re-open it, explaining that what Muazzez had signed (at Streathers) was not a transfer but was something to do with her late husband’s estate.f.Isa produced a timeline in November 2018 for the use of HM Land Registry’s case officer. It sets out the various items of correspondence with Hawkins Ryan (produced by Mehmet in support of his objection to Muazzez’s application) and notes that Muazzez had never seen them before. What he said about 27 May 2018 was that Muazzez visited Streathers to sign a document prepared by Mehmet, and that he explained to her that the document “was to permit authority to transfer 27 Netherford Road to er three children”. Those italicised words are crucially missing from Mehmet’s account set out at paragraph 50 f above; Isa was reporting what Mehmet said about the transfer, rather than giving his own or Muazzez’s account.g.Muazzez’s “third witness statement” was actually her Statement of Case in the FTT, which said that she did not sign the transfer. The visit to Streathers was not part of her case and she did not mention it.h.Muazzez did mention the visit to Streathers in her witness statement in the FTT, dated 19 October 2019, in order to explain her statement to the Family Court. At that stage, she did think that she had signed a transfer, at Streathers, but that she had been misled about its effect, but that was no longer her case.61.The narrative we now have, supplemented by Muazzez’s discoveries on 10 January 2018 and 27 April 2018, resolves the questions raised by the judge’s account. The judge did not make a finding about the visit to Streathers because it was not part of Muazzez’s case and was irrelevant to what he had to decide. The statement to the Family Court is not troubling because it is explained by Muazzez’s state of knowledge at the time. And Sina’s evidence is indeed unremarkable, again because of Muazzez’s state of knowledge at the time. The judge made no mention of the MPF because it had no evidential significance, but what Isa and Muazzez said to the police was consistent with their evolving understanding of what had happened.62.The other puzzle was the judge’s failure to mention Mr Houlous’ evidence. Mr Bayar Houlous made a witness statement in September 2019, referring to a conversation he had with Muazzez and Sina in July 2016. According to Mr Houlous, Muazzez told him that her husband had transferred 25 Netherford Road to her two sons, and that she had transferred 27 to Mehmet alone to compensate him because other property had been given to the other two children.63.Mr Houlous’ evidence was put to Muazzez at the trial; she denied it and referred to his criminal convictions for drug dealing. Mr Houlous attended and was cross-examined, and did not deny his criminal record. He has spent 12 years in prison. It is well-established that a judge is not obliged to refer to every piece of evidence presented to him; whilst it would have been helpful if he had dealt with Mr Houlous’ evidence it is easy to see that the judge rejected it in light of the rest of the evidence and of the obvious doubts about Mr Houlouss’ credibility.The outcome of the appeal64.The second ground of appeal is that the judge failed to take account of significant parts of the evidence in reaching his conclusion on credibility or, if he did take account of it, he failed to give any explanation of how it was consistent with his conclusion. Does that ground succeed in light of what I have set out above?65.I have no doubt that the judge did not fail to take account of any part of the evidence.66.Once one understands the crucial discoveries that Muazzez made on 10 January and 27 April 2018 it is easy to see why the judge did not need to make any findings about the visit to Streathers. The visit had been a source of confusion to her, but it was in the end irrelevant, because of the way her knowledge and understanding changed on 10 January 2018 and 27 April 2018. I would add that there was nothing implausible about the account of the visit; Mehmet protests that it is inconceivable that Streathers did not have a record of the visit, but if the purpose of the visit was simply to have a signature witnessed, on a straightforward document about Mr Edhem senior’s estate, then it is unsurprising. Such a visit would not have made Muazzez a client of the firm and would not have needed to be documented.67.Equally we can see why the judge was not troubled by Muazzez’s statement to the Family Court.68.Equally, in light of the events of 10 January and 27 April 2018, it is easy to see that Sina’s evidence was, as the judge said, unremarkable, and that the MPF file added nothing. It is also easy to see why the judge would have rejected Mr Houlous’ evidence.69.And while the judge expressed surprisingly little concern about the falsity of Isa’s evidence about what he showed to Ms Mitchell (see paragraph 25 above), and no concern at all about the fact that Isa and Muazzez had visited Ms Mitchell in the circumstances. one can see that it made no difference to the judge’s finding that on the central issue Muazzez was telling the truth. Mehmet points out that the judge did not even mention that Muazzez’s statement of case reproduced Isa’s falsehood about what was shown to Ms Mitchell and, again, it is likely that the judge took the view that it made no difference; even though, as he said at his paragraph 6.46, she was “less than completely frank”, on the central issue she was telling the truth.70.So I am satisfied that the judge did not fail to take account of any of the evidence.71.However, reverting to the ground of appeal, did he nevertheless fail to explain how it was consistent with his conclusion?72.Mr Connolly helpfully referred me to the decision of the Court of Appeal in Simetra Global Assets Limited v Ikon Finance Limited [2019] EWCA Civ 1413 and to the observations of Males LJ at paragraph 49:“Without attempting to be comprehensive or prescriptive, not least because it has been said many times that what is required will depend on the nature of the case and that no universal template is possible, I would make four points which appear from the authorities and which are particularly relevant in this case. First, succinctness is as desirable in a judgment as it is in counsel's submissions, but short judgments must be careful judgments. Second, it is not necessary to deal expressly with every point, but a judge must say enough to show that care has been taken and that the evidence as a whole has been properly considered. Which points need to be dealt with and which can be omitted itself requires an exercise of judgment. Third, the best way to demonstrate the exercise of the necessary care is to make use of "the building blocks of the reasoned judicial process" by identifying the issues which need to be decided, marshalling (however briefly and without needing to recite every point) the evidence which bears on those issues, and giving reasons why the principally relevant evidence is either accepted or rejected as unreliable. Fourth, and in particular, fairness requires that a judge should deal with apparently compelling evidence, where it exists, which is contrary to the conclusion which he proposes to reach and explain why he does not accept it.”73.He argued that in the light of those four points the decision of the FTT was sound. As to the first, the judgment was succinct. As to the second, the omission of some of the evidence was not fatal and, in his submission, the judge took proper care to show that the evidence as a whole had been considered. 74.As to the third point, Mr Connolly argued that the judge’s decision stood securely on a number of building blocks. First, the judge found that Muazzez and Mr Edhem senior wanted to achieve equality between their children, and that the transfer of number 27 to Mehmet alone would not achieve that. Second, he found that in the weeks leading up to her husband’s death Muazzez would not have been able to conduct the correspondence with, and instructions to, Hawkins Ryan that Mehmet sought to attribute to her. Third, the judge found that Mehmet was lying about the instructions to Hawkins Ryan and rejected his account of how the transfer came to be executed. He also rejected Ms Mitchell’s evidence about the execution of the transfer. In light of the fact that either Mehmet or Muazzez, but not both, was lying about whether she signed the transfer, the judge could have stopped there, but he also found that Muazzez was telling the truth when she said she had not signed the transfer, on the basis of his assessment of her cognitive abilities and of her evidence as a whole. 75.As to the fourth point made by Males LJ, the judge needed to deal with apparently compelling evidence, but the evidence he omitted – in particular Mr Houlous’ and the MPF - was not compelling.76.I accept Mr Connolly’s argument.77.The judge could certainly have assisted the reader (other than the parties, who were aware of how the evidence fitted together) by explaining how Muazzez’s statement to the family court, the visit to Streathers, and Sina’s and Mr Houlous’ evidence were consistent with that conclusion. It would have been helpful to have more comment about the falsity of Isa’s and Muazzez’s statements about the visit to Ms Mitchell. But I take the view that his conclusion as to who was lying about the one central issue was properly explained. 78.If I had come to a different conclusion about that, I would in any event have refused to set aside the FTT’s decision because to do so, and to remit the matter to the FTT for a re-hearing, would be completely pointless in light of:a.the judge’s finding that Mehmet was lying, upon which the appeal has cast no doubt;b.his finding that on the one central issue Muazzez was telling the truth, andc.the fact that it is possible to understand (and the parties themselves certainly understand) how all the evidence was consistent with that conclusion. 79.The FTT’s decision was obviously correct, despite the gaps in its explanation, and a re-hearing would be a waste of costs and of the resources of the parties and the FTT.80.The appeal fails on both grounds.Upper Tribunal Judge Elizabeth Cooke 7 September 2022