High Court found solicitor liable for fraud and fraudulent breach of trust, describing him as ‘argumentative, evasive and untruthful’
A solicitor has been found liable for fraud and fraudulent breach of trust after a High Court judge concluded that he dishonestly misused £834,000 entrusted to him for a Sharia-compliant property investment venture.
In Amr Danyaal Mashal & Ors v Awais Javed & Ors, Deputy High Court Judge Christopher Pymont KC ruled in favour of four siblings and a family company who transferred substantial sums to solicitor Awais Javed between 2018 and 2019.
The claimants alleged that Javed, a long-standing family friend, persuaded them to enter into a joint property investment arrangement under which both sides would contribute equally towards the purchase of properties without mortgage finance, in accordance with Islamic principles. The family ultimately transferred £834,000 to Javed or companies under his control.
The court heard that Javed had developed a close relationship with the family through the East London Mosque, where the claimants’ father, Mohamad Mashal, served as a trustee and imam. The judge found that the family placed considerable trust and confidence in him when transferring the funds.
However, the court found that Javed never made the promised matching contribution. Instead, properties were acquired through companies he controlled using the claimants’ money, while substantial sums were diverted for his own benefit, including improvements to his home.
Judge Pymont was highly critical of Javed’s evidence, describing him as an “entirely dishonest witness” who was “by turns argumentative, evasive and untruthful”. The judge found that his dealings with the claimants were marked by secrecy and dishonesty and that he repeatedly concealed what he was doing with their money.
The court also noted the absence of meaningful accounting records relating to the claimants’ funds or the companies involved, despite the significant sums that had been entrusted to him.
A central issue in the case was the nature of Javed’s obligations to the claimants. Judge Pymont held that Javed had “clearly accepted a fiduciary role” in relation to the funds and found that he received the money “in his fiduciary capacity and as a constructive trustee”. The judge concluded that Javed owed fiduciary duties to the claimants and was responsible for properly safeguarding and accounting for the money entrusted to him.
The court further found that the companies through which the transactions were conducted operated under Javed’s control and acted on his behalf throughout the relevant period.
The proceedings continued despite Javed being adjudicated bankrupt on his own petition in November 2025. The claimants amended their case to plead fraud and fraudulent breach of trust, claims that survive bankruptcy under section 281(3) of the Insolvency Act 1986.
In awarding judgment, Judge Pymont found that the claimants had not received the benefit of the investment arrangement for which the money had been transferred and that Javed had failed to provide a proper account of his dealings with the funds. The court therefore granted a money judgment for £834,000, representing the sums transferred and not accounted for.
The judge also held that rental income generated from the properties, amounting to £87,665 before deductions, was recoverable. In addition, the court recognised proprietary interests in properties acquired using the claimants’ funds and awarded interest.
In his concluding remarks, Judge Pymont said: “For the purposes of section 281(3) of the Insolvency Act 1986, I should make it clear that this judgment is based on Mr Javed’s fraud and fraudulent breach of trust.”