When high-net-worth (HNW) families purchase luxury real estate in the names of their children, they often assume the property remains a collective family asset. However, a complex High Court enforcement battle demonstrates the risks of using offshore corporate structures and informal family arrangements (IFAs) when third-party creditors come knocking.
Background:
Following a judgement, creditors, led by Dr. Morteza Rajabieslami, successfully obtained substantial Commercial Court consent orders totalling $24m USD against the son, Sam Tariverdi. To secure this debt, the creditors obtained a final charging order registered against the London property, which was held in Sam’s sole legal name.
Seeking to shield the asset from a forced judicial sale, Sam’s father, Dr. Hassan Tariverdy, a retired lecturer based in Iran, intervened under Section 3(5) of the Charging Orders Act (COA) 1979. Hassan asserted that he held the entire beneficial interest in the property under a resulting trust, meaning that his son Sam was a mere nominee. Hassan argued that, within their family’s traditional Iranian cultural framework, a patriarch retains absolute ownership of major family wealth, and that the flat was registered in Sam's name purely for administrative convenience and to facilitate a UK student visa. Hassan had fully funded the multi-stage acquisition and a subsequent lease extension under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act (LRHUDA) 1993, routing offshore funds through exchange channels via an acquaintance, Panagiotis Postantzis, and his companies, Transocean Marine Ltd and Mayfair Themida Advisory Ltd.
Alternatively, Sam’s mother, Dr. Farimah Ghezelaigh, who had occupied the flat during extensive medical treatments in London, claimed an independent equitable right to occupy or a beneficial interest based on a verbal family arrangement and her financial contributions to localised flooding repairs and interior renovations. The judgement creditors vigorously contested these parental claims, pointing to a trail of contradictory legal declarations. To secure a mortgage from Santander Plc and a previous bridging loan facility from Amicus Finance Plc, Sam had executed formal compliance documents explicitly confirming that he was the absolute owner, that he was not acting as a trustee, and that no relatives would reside in the dwelling. Further, when hit with an asset-freezing order, Sam had listed the flat as his personal asset, relying on an un-witnessed 2014 promissory note stating he owed the purchase price to his father as a standard personal loan.
Decision:
Master Dagnall rejected the arguments of the judgement creditors and ruled that the full beneficial interest in the property belonged exclusively to the father, meaning that the creditors' final charging order had to be set aside. The Court conducted an exhaustive analysis of the historic tension between a resulting trust—where equity presumes a money provider retains ownership—and the presumption of advancement, which counter-presumes, under traditional English property principles, that a parent intends an outright gift to their child. Reviewing established authorities such as Lavelle v Lavelle, Shephard v Cartwright, and Chettiar v Chettiar, the Court aligned with modern jurisprudential shifts seen in Pettitt v Pettitt and Jones v Kernott, concluding that traditional equitable presumptions are not rigid rules of law but rather weak evidential starting points, ones easily rebutted on a balance of probabilities. The Court held that equity searches exclusively for the true subjective intention of the money provider at the time of the transaction, which must be assessed holistically through all contemporaneous and subsequent conduct, adopting the flexible evidentiary lines from Tribe v Tribe and Wood v Watkin.
The Court found that Hassan’s subjective intention to retain absolute ownership was proved. His personal, internal adherence to traditional patriarchal practices served as active evidence that neutralised the force of the presumption of advancement. Furthermore, the "visa" and "convenience" rationale explained why legal title was put in Sam's name without any intention to pass the true beneficial equity to him. A layperson would naturally assume legal registration was sufficient for immigration purposes without intending to surrender their life savings. Crucially, the Court dismissed the extensive trail of regulatory and financial documents signed by Sam as casual, non-binding deceptions that carried no weight when determining the father's true intent.
Implications:
For international families, this ruling delivers a vital warning regarding the absolute necessity of transparent asset structuring. The Court made it clear that you cannot treat a property as belonging to a child for administrative convenience, immigration visas, or banking applications, and then safely expect that English courts will always look past those official documents to rescue the asset if your child faces a personal lawsuit, divorce, or business bankruptcy. While the father, in this specific case, was ultimately vindicated by a holistic judicial review of the family's unique circumstances, relying on casual conversations, shared cultural values, or un-witnessed family notes is a fraught, high-risk strategy, one that will usually provide scant protection against aggressive commercial debt collection or court-ordered asset seizures.
If you genuinely wish to fund a child's property purchase while preserving your underlying capital, you must discard informal handshakes and implement ironclad, legally compliant security structures from day one. This requires executing a valid, fully witnessed legal charge or a formal declaration of trust that is immediately registered on the public land title before any third-party liabilities can attach to your child. Ultimately, this judgement reassures families that genuine intentions can still be proven, yet serves as a stern reminder that failing to document financial boundaries when assisting the next generation formally exposes your hard-earned family estate to your child's unexpected legal downfalls. Proper wealth preservation requires aligning your public regulatory filings with your private family intentions long before a crisis hits.