In forgery cases, the opinions of handwriting experts are only a part of the evidential picture, and there is no reason why that opinion must trump the evidence of an eyewitness of other witness of fact: Kingley Developments Ltd v Brudenell & Ors [2016] EWCA Civ 980.
However, ordinarily, a party alleging a “calculated forgery and fraud by his brother” ought to be “busting a gut” to expose the forgery, by providing handwriting samples and agreeing to the instruction of a handwriting expert.
In the recent decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) in Joshi v Joshi, Judge Ewan Paton dismissed applications to alter the registered legal titles under Sched. 4 of the Land Registration Act 2002, following trial. The applications were made in respect of two properties in North London in a family property dispute between siblings and their mother, with a number of witnesses of fact called in support of the applications.
As to the role (and absence) of handwriting evidence in this case, the Judge found that: “Even where, as here, the original documents are not available, a handwriting expert could still offer an opinion, even if qualified, on the similarities or otherwise between the contested signatures and any relevant samples provided for comparison.”
The decision is a reminder that:
(a) applications of this type before the Tribunal are limited to determining ownership of legal title, and whether historic transfers should be reversed. There being no application(s) for restrictions, questions of beneficial ownership were not decided (and the presumption of beneficial ownership applies); and
(b) whilst the standard of proof required to establish forgery is the ordinary civil standard (BoP), the Tribunal is entitled to take account of the fact that, “… it is not every day that people, particularly those with no known previous criminal history, forge documents to deprive others of their property.” Cogent evidence is generally required to satisfy a civil tribunal that a person has been fraudulent or behaved in some other reprehensible manner: Secretary of State for the Home Department v Rehman [2001] UKHL 47 at [55].
A link to the decision can be found here
George Woodhead was instructed on behalf of the respondent by Georgina Kenny and Robyn Veevers of Forbes Solicitors.
To learn more about George’s practice, please click here https://www.selbornechambers.co.uk/barrister/george-woodhead/
