Malik (Appellant) v Malik (Respondent)

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2025/0010

Parties

Appellant(s)

Vaqar Ahmed Malik

Respondent(s)

Iftikhar Ahmed Malik

Issue

Was it an abuse of process for a party to bring an adverse possession claim in respect of a property, after having taken the position in previous proceedings that he could and would not bring such a claim?

Facts

This appeal arises from a prolonged dispute between two brothers, Vaqar Malik (“Vaqar”) and Iftikhar Malik (“Iftikhar”), over ownership of a flat in Knightsbridge. Iftikhar purchased the flat on a long lease in 1978. He was sole legal and beneficial owner. From that point Vaqar used the flat, along with other family members. In 1987, the brothers fell out. Vaqar took occupation of the flat and refused all others access. Iftikhar sued Vaqar for possession, but this action was stayed after Iftikhar failed to pay security for costs into court (“the 1987 stay”). Vaqar counter-claimed for possession. That claim was also later stayed. Attempts were made to resolve the dispute within the family. These broke down around 2010 or 2011. By this time, Vaqar was bankrupt. Any interest he had in the flat had passed to his trustee in bankruptcy. Iftikhar paid the security for costs sum and applied to lift the 1987 stay (“the 2012 claim”). At a hearing of the 2012 claim, the judge understood that Vaqar had confirmed orally that he could not make a claim on the flat in adverse possession. On that understanding, the judge refused to lift the 1987 stay: there would be no substantial prejudice in Iftikhar starting a fresh possession claim instead of continuing the old claim. In April 2018, Iftikhar brought a fresh possession claim against Vaqar. Vaqar, now discharged from bankruptcy, counter-claimed that he had acquired title to the flat through adverse possession (“the AP claim”). In March 2022, the County Court judge determined that it was an abuse of process for Vaqar to make the AP claim, given his position in the 2012 claim. The County Court judge granted possession to Iftikhar. In 2023, the High Court allowed Vaqar’s appeal, finding that the AP claim was not an abuse of process. However, the High Court then separately granted Iftikhar’s application to lift the 1987 stay on his original possession proceedings. As there was no defence to those proceedings, Iftikhar was granted summary judgement and therefore possession of the flat. In 2024, the Court of Appeal found that Vaqar’s position in the 2012 claim had rendered his AP claim an abuse of process (reversing the High Court decision). It therefore restored the County Court judge’s decision. Vaqar now appeals against that decision to the Supreme Court.

Date of issue

21 January 2025

Case origin

PTA

Appeal

Justices

Lord Briggs

Lord Hamblen

Lord Richards

Permission to Appeal

Permission to Appeal decision date

25 February 2025

Permission to Appeal decision

Refused

Back to top