Sophia Drewe v Bradley Benjamin Drewe

Introduction

1. The Applicant, Sophia Drewe, is the mother of the Respondent, Bradley Drewe. Bradley Drewe is the registered freehold proprietor of land comprising 22 Horton Avenue, Cricklewood, London, NW2 2SA [“22 Horton Avenue”]. The Land Register records that Bradley Drewe was registered as the proprietor of 22 Horton Avenue on 1 March 2021. Bradley Drewe was born on 21 September 2021 such that, on the date he was registered as proprietor of 22 Horton Avenue, he was 19 years of age. Bradley Drewe is an autistic young man and, at the beginning of 2021, he was living with his mother at 16 Cheshire Drive, Leavesden, Watford, Herts, WD25 7GP. At the beginning of 2021 22 Horton Avenue was owned by Sophia Drewe’s mother (and Bradley Drewe’s grandmother) Bat-Sheva Goudsmid. Bat-Sheva Goudsmid died on 18 October 2024.

2. By an application on Form RX1 dated 1 March 2023 Sophia Drewe applied to register a Restriction in Form B against the title to 22 Horton Avenue. The Restriction sought is: “No disposition by the proprietor of the registered estate is to be registered unless one or more of them makes a statutory declaration or statement of truth or their conveyancer gives a certificate that the disposition is in accordance with a Trust Deed dated 25 February 2021 or some variation thereof referred to in the declaration statement or certificate.” In response to this application, two statements dated 14 March 2023 were sent to HM Land Registry. One was signed by Bat-Sheva Goudsmid in which she stated: “I have given this house to Bradley, and he has never signed it over to his mother. She does not have his interests at heart, nor any legal reason to be involved with 22 Horton Avenue.”. The other statement was signed by Nadav Drewe. Nadav Drewe is the son of Bat-Sheva Goudsmid and the half-brother of Sophia Drewe. He stated he was writing “on Bradley’s behalf” and objected to 22 Horton Road being “stolen from [Bradley] by nefarious and illegal means”.

3. Subsequently, the issue of whether a Restriction in the form sought should be entered on the title to 22 Horton Road was referred to the First-Tier Tribunal by HM Land Registry. A Statement of Case was prepared by Sophia Drewe and, on 11 September 2023, a Respondent’s Statement of Case was filed. The Respondent’s Statement of Case contained a Statement of Truth signed by Bradley Drewe although it is likely that the Statement of Case was substantively prepared by Nadav Drewe. This is because at the heart of this matter is a bitter dispute between Sophia and Nadav Drewe, the only children of Bat-Sheva Goudsmid. Unfortunately Bradley Drewe has now become a central player in that dispute.

4. The Respondent’s Statement of Case alleged that Bradley Drewe’s signature on the Deed of Trust dated 25 February 2021 (upon which Sophia Drewe relied to found her application for a Restriction) was not genuine. Accordingly by an Order dated 13 November 2024 the Applicant (Sophia Drewe) was permitted to rely upon an expert handwriting report from Mr Adam Brand and the Respondent (Bradley Drewe) was permitted to rely upon an expert handwriting report from Ms Ruth Myers. The Order dated 13 November 2024 also recognised that the Respondent’s Statement of Case raised an alternative case that the Deed of Trust should be set aside on equitable grounds namely undue influence and/or misrepresentation. That required an original application to be made to the Tribunal under s.108(2) of the Land Registration Act 2002 in Form T410. In due course an application in Form T410 was made by Bradley Drewe dated 11 December 2024 and by an Order dated 6 March 2025 Bradley Drewe’s application to set aside the Deed of Trust (which application had been given the case number REC 2025/0005) was listed to be heard at the same time as Sophia Drewe’s application for a restriction.

5. Hence on 17 and 18 July 2025 the Tribunal heard the two applications. Sophia Drewe represented herself and Bradley Drewe was represented by Mr James Sandham of Counsel. Sophia Drewe proved a confident, competent and combative advocate despite being a litigant-in-person. In order to ensure fairness to Sophia Drewe, the Tribunal sat late on 18 July 2025 in order that Sophia Drewe could complete all the cross-examination that she wanted and granted an extension of time to Sophia Drewe in the preparation of her written Closing Submissions (which submissions had, in any case, been ordered to be served 7 days after the written submissions of Counsel for Bradley Drewe).

6. The Tribunal heard oral evidence from 5 lay witnesses (namely Sophia Drewe and Lisa Davis (a friend of Sophia Drewe) and Bradley Drewe, Oliver Jones (a friend of Nadav Drewe) and Samantha Cocksedge (Bradley Drewe’s aunt)) and the 2 expert witnesses. Although witness statements had been provided by Alessia Tropea (whose signature appears on the Deed of Trust as a witness), Bat-Sheva Goudsmid, Nadav Drewe and Finbar Horgan, none of these witnesses gave oral evidence.

7. There is little dispute about the situation in 2020. Bat-Sheva Goudsmid was the sole registered freehold proprietor of 22 Horton Avenue. The property was mortgage-free and it was let to tenants. Rents were paid to Bat-Sheva Goudsmid but Sophia Drewe effectively manged the property. Nadav Drewe lived in an outbuilding in the garden of 22 Horton Avenue but seems to have been paying no rent.

8. Sophia Drewe believed that her mother intended her to inherit 22 Horton Avenue. She believed that Bat-Sheva Goudsmid would leave her residential home at 65 Brent Terrace, London, NW2 1BY to Nadav Drewe and 22 Horton Avenue to Sophia Drewe. She was content with this arrangement as 22 Horton Avenue had a garden and a drive (which features she had use for) whereas 65 Brent Terrace did not. There appears to have been some discussions within the family about this in late 2020 as Oliver Jones gave evidence that he was aware from a discussion with Bat-Sheva Goudsmid in November 2020 that she intended to transfer 22 Horton Avenue to Bradley Drewe. This seems to have been because Sophia Drewe had persuaded her mother that a transfer to her grandson (and Sophia Drewe’s sole child) would save inheritance tax as (it was thought) none would be payable in relation to 22 Horton Avenue upon Sophia Drewe’s death if the property was in the name of Bradley Drewe. Oliver Jones did not consider this arrangement sensible (stating in a text message to Bat-Sheva Goudsmid in November 2020: “There are lots of good options, but quickly conveying it to Bradley right now is not one of them”) and suggested that 22 Horton Avenue should be transferred to Nadav Drewe and Bradley Drewe jointly. He accordingly sought a quote from the conveyancing team at Ronald Fletcher Baker LLP for undertaking the appropriate conveyancing. A quote was provided on 16 November 2020 and it was confirmed that no SDLT would be payable if the property was gifted and there would be no inheritance tax payable assuming Bat-Sheva Goudsmid did not pass away within 7 years. In an e-mail Mr Nasr of Ronald Fletcher Baker LLP stated that he was unable to advise upon CGT and could ask a colleague to consider whether any CGT liability could be deferred if the property was placed into a trust.

9. In the event Ronald Fletcher Baker LLP was not instructed on the conveyancing of 22 Horton Avenue and Bat-Sheva Goudsmid did not decide to transfer the property to Nadav Drewe and Bradley Drewe jointly. Rather, Sophia Drewe persuaded Bat-Sheva Goudsmid to transfer the property solely to Bradley Drewe and, with Bat-Sheva Goudsmid refusing to pay for a solicitor to assist with the conveyancing, Sophia Drewe dealt with this. It does not appear that Bradley Drewe was involved in any way in this decision (or the implementation of the decision) – as he says “Everything was handled by my mother”.

10. Sophia Drewe recognised that, in order to complete the transfer of 22 Horton Avenue, a TR1 and an AP1 would need to be completed and submitted to HM Land Registry. A TR1 dated 23 February 2021 was signed by Bat-Sheva Goudsmid gifting 22 Horton Avenue to Bradley Drewe. The date is initialled by Nadav Goudsmid (Nadav Drewe), Bat-Sheva Goudsmid and Bradley Drewe, but it does not appear that they were all present at the same time in the same place. The Tribunal accepts Sophia Drewe’s evidence that she took the TR1 to Bat-Sheva Goudsmid for her to sign at 65 Brent Terrace. She then took the document to Nadav Drewe (at his house) for him to witness Bat-Sheva Goudsmid’s signature. Thus Nadav Drewe did not (as everyone knew) actually witness Bat-Sheva Goudmsid’s signature on the TR1, but everyone concerned was content as the property was being transferred into Bradley Drewe’s sole name. Bradley Drewe was not required to sign the TR1 and he only initialled the date after it had been signed by his grandmother and uncle. Sophia Drewe believed there was an urgency to getting the transfer effected as she thought there was a risk that CGT might be increased.

11. On 25 February 2021 Sophia Drewe arranged for Bradley Drewe to sign the AP1. The events of 25 February 2021 are of critical importance as this is the day that Sophia Drewe contends Bradley Drewe signed the Deed of Trust. Whilst Bradley Drewe disputes that it is his signature on the Deed of Trust, he does not dispute that it is his signature on the AP1 (in the form “B. Drewe”) and that this form was submitted to HM Land Registry on 25 February 2021 (together with the TR1) to enable 22 Horton Avenue to be registered in his sole name. The text messages between Sophia Drewe and Bat-Sheva Goudsmid on 25 February 2021 show that Sophia Drewe had been trying to organise the paperwork for the transfer for 2 days and that eventually at 17.20 on 25 February 2021 the forms were sent off from the post office.

12. On 25 February 2021 Bradley Drewe would have been at school. Sophia Drewe’s evidence is that she had prepared the Deed of Trust from a template and had printed it out ready to be signed on 25 February 2021 when Bradley returned home. Prior to her oral evidence Sophia Drewe had not stated when or where the Deed of Trust was signed. As a result, Bradley Drewe’s written evidence did not address the events of 25 February 2021 beyond saying he had not signed the Deed of Trust. Bradley Drewe did, though, state that he had not seen Alessia Tropea since 2014/15. Alessia Tropea purported to witness Bradley Drewe’s execution of the Deed of Trust. Her witness statement dated 17 July 2023 stated: “I am giving this statement to confirm that I witnessed in person both Miss Sophia Drewe and Mr Bradley Drewe signing the declaration of trust deed dated 25/02/2021 made between themselves. I also signed this deed as a witness to attest these signatures.”. The statement did not explain when, where or who was present when the Deed of Trust was signed. Unfortunately, Ms Tropea did not attend to give evidence and Sophia Drewe explained that this was because she was afraid of Nadav Drewe. The Tribunal is satisfied that Sophia Drewe made efforts to persuade Ms Tropea to attend the Tribunal but Ms Tropea did not do so. In the circumstances, however, the Tribunal is not satisfied that Ms Tropea witnessed Bradley Drewe signing the Deed of Trust on 25 February 2021. This is because the Tribunal accepts that Bradley Drewe had not seen Ms Tropea since 2014/15 and considers that, as with the witnessing of the TR1, what was considered important was that a witness’s signature was applied to the document rather than that the witness actually saw the document being signed. Ms Tropea did not physically witness Bradley Drewe signing the Deed of Trust on 25 February 2021.

13. Whilst it is correct that pursuant to section 1 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 a deed must be witnessed by a witness who is physically present, it is not necessary for a declaration of trust to be completed by a deed. Section 53(1)(b) of the Law of Property Act 1925 merely requires that: “a declaration of trust respecting land or any interest therein must be manifested and proved by some writing signed by some person who is able to declare such trust or by his will”. The Tribunal is satisfied that, even if unwitnessed, the Deed of Trust dated 25 February 2021 is a written document apparently signed by Bradley Drewe and thus would be capable of satisfying the statutory formalities of section

53. As a result, the finding that Ms Tropea did not witness the Deed of Trust being signed is not determinative of Sophia Drewe’s application. It is though unfortunate that Ms Tropea was not able to assist the Tribunal as to what she says happened on 25 February 2021.

14. The finding that Ms Tropea did not witness Bradley Drewe’s signature on the Deed of Trust also does not mean that Bradley Drewe did not sign the Deed of Trust. Indeed the Tribunal is satisfied, having considered all the expert evidence, that Bradley Drewe did sign the Deed of Trust. Mr Brand gave compelling and persuasive evidence that in his view the signature “B. Drewe” on the Deed of Trust was written by Bradley Drewe. In contrast Ms Myers’ conclusion that: “Due to the paucity of available documents, examination and comparison of the questioned signature on the Deed provided limited evidence to support the proposition that it had been authored by another hand” was, as she accepted in her oral evidence, equivocal. Ms Myers was not provided with any sample documents signed by Bradley Drewe in the form “B. Drewe” (as on the Deed of Trust) and this inevitably impaired her ability to reach a firm conclusion as to the authenticity of the signature on the Deed of Trust – as Mr Brand reported “…in handwriting examination ‘like for like’ is important”. In contrast Mr Brand obtained 38 signatures in the form “B. Drewe” which he compared with the signatures on the AP1 and the Deed of Trust. Mr Brand stated: “[Bradley Drewe]’s signatures are irregular, disconnected with a ‘printed’ rather than a cursive style, so it is understandable that a forger might have a good chance of producing a ‘genuine’ signature. But when it comes to the significant and ‘unconscious’ movements (e.g. the crest line, the letter spacing, the initial angles, the key letters at the end of the signature and the signature length) these are similarities which would be difficult for a forger to produce, in combination, without losing fluency. With forgery a loss of fluency and possible signs of nervousness can be expected, yet the stroke analysis showed the questioned signature to be as fluent as the requested signatures if not more so.”. Mr Brand therefore concluded that Bradley Drewe had signed the Deed of Trust and the Tribunal accepts this as the correct conclusion.

15. Subsequent to the TR1 and the AP1 being sent off to HM Land Registry it was necessary for ID verification checks to be carried out on Bat-Sheva Goudsmid and Bradley Drewe. Bradley Drewe accepted in his witness statement that at around this time he and his mother took his passport to “some sort of store in Watford” for his ID to be verified. The Tribunal is satisfied that this is a reference to attending the offices of an unnamed firm of solicitors. In her oral evidence Sophia Drewe asserted that at this time Bradley Drewe received independent legal advice as to the nature and effect of the Deed of Trust. The Tribunal does not accept this for the following reasons: (i) The first time that this “advice” was mentioned was in her oral evidence when Sophia Drewe was seeking to explain that any presumption of undue influence could be rebutted. This seemed like a hastily contrived attempt to resolve a difficulty with Sophia Drewe’s case. (ii) There was no reason for the Deed of Trust to be taken to a solicitor nor for a solicitor to advise upon it when the visit was simply to obtain ID verification in relation to the TR1 and AP1. (iii) There is no evidence that any solicitor ever charged for providing advice to Bradley Drewe or provided any certification that advice had been provided to Bradley Drewe.

16. Unfortunately, in April 2021, Sophia Drewe and Bradley Drewe had a falling out (which was unconnected to 22 Horton Avenue) and Bradley Drewe moved in with Bat-Sheva Goudsmid at 65 Brent Terrace. At this time neither Bat-Sheva Goudsmid nor Nadav Drewe had any knowledge of the Deed of Trust. As Sophia Drewe acknowledged in her oral evidence, the Deed of Trust was for her “own safety” and was a “back-up against falling out with Bradley”. The use of a trust deed appears to have been something that had been suggested to Sophia Drewe by her best friend Lisa Davis as a means for Sophia Drewe to secure the property and avoid inheritance tax. The Deed of Trust signed by Bradley Drewe provided that he held 22 Horton Avenue on trust for Sophia Drewe as to 100% and that he was to maintain and insure the property and to pay all costs in connection with the supply of services and utilities to the property (albeit it was recognised at cl.11(B) of the Deed of Trust that income from the rental of the property was to be used for the payment of all outgoings).

17. In July 2021 Bradley Drewe moved in to 22 Horton Avenue, notwithstanding that at this time the property was still tenanted. Soon after, in August 2021, Nadav Drewe moved from the outbuilding (which he and Bradley Drewe claimed had become uninhabitable) in to 22 Horton Avenue. The remaining tenant, Angela Palmieri, left 22 Horton Avenue in about October 2021. By this time Sophia Drewe was concerned about the welfare of Bradley Drewe and the deteriorating condition of 22 Horton Avenue. She describes in her (first) Statement of Case it being “obvious that Bradley Drewe is facing coercive control and undue influence” from Nadav Drewe. She therefore emailed Adult Social Services on 12 October 2021 to raise safeguarding concerns about Bradley Drewe and, on 16 October 2021, applied to the Court of Protection for an Order appointing her as Deputy for Bradley Drewe. In the Court of Protection application Sophia Drewe alleged that Bradley Drewe had ”no ability to understand and manage his own financial affairs or how to sustain himself financially” and said he was vulnerable to influence from others and lacked understanding of consequences and legal implications.

18. The application to the Court of Protection was unusual given that Sophia Drewe maintains (as per her January 2025 Statement of Case) that Bradley Drewe “is not illiterate [and] he does not have a significant intellectual impairment”. On 26 November 2021 Bradley Drewe’s GP, Dr Cavendish, refused Sophia Drewe’s request to sign a COP3 as he “did NOT think he [Bradley Drewe] lacked capacity but that he needed good advice independently to manage his affairs”. The Court of Protection application resulted, though, in two Acknowledgments of Service both signed by Bradley Drewe. By one dated 16 November 2021 Bradley Drewe opposed the application stating (in a type-written Appendix): “I am a fully functional male of 20 years old…I attend college in higher education. My grandmother gifted me the property 22 Horton Avenue instead of my mother, which has caused some resentment on her behalf has persuaded her out of desperation to try and take control of my affairs under the pretense I cannot control them myself.“. This Acknowledgement was likely prepared under the influence of Nadav Drewe. The second Acknowledgment was dated 11 March 2022 and by it Bradley Drewe consented to the application. This Acknowledgment was signed after Samantha Cocksedge had sought, at the request of Sophia Drewe, to get Bradley Drewe to sign this document following a lunch at a Toby Carvery. The second Acknowledgment was prepared under the influence of Sophia Drewe.

19. At the direction of the Court of Protection Dr Sarah Jane Constantine prepared a Visitor Report pursuant to s.49(2) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 on Bradley Drewe on 12 April 2022. Dr Constantine met with Bradley Drewe (alone) at 22 Horton Avenue on 3 April 2022. Dr Constantine concluded that: (i) Bradley Drewe did have an impairment of the brain in that he has an established diagnosis of Autistic Spectrum Disorder and has a history of learning difficulty (which was assessed formally by testing in 2016 with a finding that he was functioning in the low average range). (ii) Bradley Drewe had capacity to manage his property and affairs and had capacity to make decisions regarding the sale or rent of 22 Horton Avenue. Following the Report of Dr Constantine the Court of Protection made an Order dated 10 May 2022 which gave permission for objections to be made to the Report, but no objections were made. On 17 August 2022 the Court of Protection issued an Order confirming that Bradley Drewe had capacity to manage his property and affairs.

20. On 21 November 2022 Sophia Drewe wrote to Bradley Drewe requiring him to transfer the legal title to 22 Horton Avenue into her sole name (in accordance with cl.11(A) of the Deed of Trust). When this did not occur, the application was made to HM Land Registry for the entry of a restriction against the title to 22 Horton Avenue.

21. The essential issue in this case is, given that the Tribunal has concluded that Bradley Drewe did sign the Deed of Trust, whether that Deed of Trust is vitiated by undue influence. In simple terms, undue influence occurs when a person uses their power or authority unfairly to influence another person’s decisions. As such, the validity of a legal agreement or document can be affected by undue influence as it can deprive a person of their free will and consent. Where a relationship of ‘trust and confidence’ exists between parties and the person in the dominant position takes advantage of the other’s vulnerability or dependence, a presumption of undue influence will arise. A parent and child relationship (like a doctor and patient relationship or a solicitor and client relationship) gives rise to a presumption of undue influence. The law presumes that the person in the dominant position, here Sophia Drewe as Bradley Drewe’s mother, may have taken advantage of the other person’s vulnerability or dependence. A presumption of undue influence will, though, arise only if, in relation to the specific transaction at issue there is something which calls for an explanation. Here, Bradley Drewe’s entering into the Deed of Trust must be something that “cannot readily be accounted for by the ordinary motives of ordinary persons in that relationship.” (see Royal Bank of Scotland plc v. Etridge (No.2) [2002] 2 AC 773 at [24]). Accordingly the presumption that the transaction was procured by undue influence does not arise unless the nature of the transaction is sufficiently unusual or suspicious that “failing proof to the contrary, [it] was explicable only on the basis that undue influence ha[s] been exercised to procure it” (National Westminster Bank plc v. Morgan [1985] AC 686 at 704 per Lord Scarman).

22. In relation to rebutting the presumption of undue influence, the following is stated in Snell’s Equity (35th ed.) at 8-031: “If a court finds that there is a relationship of influence and a transaction calling for explanation, the doctrine of undue influence will apply unless A can show that, in fact, B’s entry into that transaction was not procured by undue influence. To do so, A must present evidence to justify a finding that, in relation to the transaction in question, B was in fact sufficiently independent of A and so was able to, and did, consent to the transaction free from any undue influence. The presumption of undue influence arises only if there is no explanation for B’s entry into the transaction other than the exertion of undue influence, so, technically, evidence rebutting the presumption does not go to the question of whether there was an understandable reason for which B entered the transaction, but to the different question of whether B’s admittedly poor decision-making was the product of undue influence. A must convince the court that B’s decision to enter the transaction was made as a result of “full, free and informed thought about it” so that B “was exercising free and independent judgment”. The presence of such thought is not, of course, a general requirement for the validity of a transaction; but it must be remembered here that, ex hypothesi, there is a relationship of influence between A and B and the transaction is one which, in its nature, can only be explained as a result of undue influence. Those concerns can only be met, in effect, by A’s showing the procedure through which B formed his or her consent. If the presumption of undue influence is rebutted, then the court has found that B’s consent to the transaction was not procured by undue influence and so the doctrine cannot apply.” The question of whether the presumption of undue influence has been rebutted is a question of fact to be determined on all the evidence.

23. Here, the Tribunal is satisfied that: (i) There plainly was in February 2021 a relationship between Sophia Drewe and Bradley Drewe which gave rise to a presumption of undue influence – Sophia Drewe was Bradley Drewe’s mother. (ii) The execution of the Deed of Trust is a transaction which calls for an explanation. The Deed of Trust recognised that Bradley Drewe had had transferred to him 22 Horton Avenue as a gift by his grandmother. However Bradley Drewe was now declaring that the 100% beneficial interest in that property was held by Sophia Drewe and that he would be responsible for maintaining and insuring the property and paying all costs in connection with the supply of services and utilities to the property whilst having no current or future beneficial interest in the property. Bradley Drewe’s giving up of his entire beneficial interest in 22 Horton Avenue and his acceptance of responsibility for all liabilities associated with 22 Horton Avenue plainly calls for an explanation. (iii) Sophia Drewe has not shown that Bradley Drewe’s execution of the Deed of Trust was the result of Bradley Drewe’s full, free and informed thought. The presumption of undue influence has not been rebutted: a. Bradley Drewe was, as Sophia Drewe well knew, particularly vulnerable to pressure and influence. Whilst in his oral evidence Bradley Drewe presented as careful, polite and a little pedantic, he was clearly stressed and upset. Whilst he has capacity Bradley Drewe clearly does not have the sharpness or acuity of his mother and the Tribunal found him to be suggestible. The Tribunal did not, though, find him to be dishonest. Bradley Drewe maintained that, although his witness statement had been drafted with the help of Nadav Drewe (because Bradley Drewe is “not good with wording”) his belief was that Bat-Sheva Goudsmid had gifted him 22 Horton Avenue so that it was his, not so that it was his mother’s. Bradley Drewe was clearly very close to his grandmother and was visibly distressed when her death was mentioned in cross-examination. Given that Bradley Drewe told Dr Constantine that 22 Horton Avenue had been gifted to him (and that he was coherent in his explanation to her as to how he would manage 22 Horton Avenue going forward), the Tribunal considers his evidence of his belief that he was the sole beneficial owner of 22 Horton Avenue to be consistent. That belief is not reconcilable with an understanding of the terms of the Deed of Trust. b. Under questioning from Sophia Drewe, Bradley Drewe accepted that, in 2021, he had not understood how the property was to be managed or rented out. This, though, does not assist Sophia Drewe as it merely makes clear that Bradley Drewe had not understood what his obligations were under the Deed of Trust. c. The Tribunal finds that Sophia Drewe did not fully explain to Bradley Drewe the nature and effect of the Deed of Trust on 25 February 2021. Neither did Bradley Drewe receive any independent advice about the nature and effect of the Deed of Trust before he signed it on 25 February 2021 (whether from a solicitor or anyone) – the only person who gave Bradley Drewe any information whatsoever about the Deed of Trust was Sophia Drewe as she was the person who had prepared it. As Sophia Drewe told the Tribunal, Bat-Sheva Goudsmid did not know about the Deed of Trust (whether as to its existence in 2021 or its terms) and therefore she could not have helped Bradley Drewe as to its terms or effect. d. Sophia Drewe’s assertion (in her closing submissions) that when the ID1 form was being completed: “The solicitor was made aware of the exact arrangement – that the property had been placed into Bradley’s name but belonged to [Sophia] Drewe” is not accepted. Had this been the case, Bat-Sheva Goudsmid would have been aware of the Deed of Trust, but she was not (and all the statements that she signed prior to her death indicate that she believed she had gifted 22 Horton Avenue to Bradley Drewe absolutely). Further had the property belonged to Sophia Drewe then, upon her death, inheritance tax would be payable and the very reason for placing 22 Horton Avenue in Bradley Drewe’s name would be undermined.

24. In the premises the Tribunal concludes that the Deed of Trust dated 25 February 2021 ought to be set aside on the grounds of undue influence. As a result Sophia Drewe’s application for the entry of a Restriction in Form B against the title to 22 Horton Avenue ought to be refused.

25. The usual rule as to costs is that the unsuccessful party should pay the successful party’s costs – as such Sophia Drewe would be ordered to pay Bradley Drewe’s costs. However, in this case, a substantial amount of time was devoted to the question of whether Bradley Drewe’s signature on the Deed of Trust was a forgery. On this point, Bradley Drewe was unsuccessful. The Tribunal is therefore minded to make no order as to costs as this seems to do justice between the parties.

26. These, though, are merely the Tribunal’s preliminary thoughts as to costs, and if any party wishes to apply for an order for costs, they must make an application in writing, accompanied by a schedule of costs no later than 5pm on 29 August 2025.  If such an application is made then: (a) A copy of the application must be sent, at the same time that it is made, to the other party; (b) The other party will then have until 5pm on 12 September 2025 to respond to the application by way of written submissions sent to the First-Tier Tribunal and copied to the applying party; and (c) Any response to such submissions should be sent to the First-Tier Tribunal and the other party by 5pm on 26 September 2025. Dated this 15th day of August 2025 Tribunal Judge Bruce BY ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL