A solicitor described as an ‘entirely dishonest witness, by turns argumentative, evasive and untruthful’ by a High Court judge has been found liable for fraud and a fraudulent breach of trust.
A sharply critical judgment by Christopher Pymont, sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court, said Awais Javed’s dealings with a group of siblings, who he had met through his friendship with their father, was ‘characterised throughout by his secretiveness and dishonesty’.
Javed, admitted to the roll in 2016, was made bankrupt on his own petition in November 2025. The siblings brought a claim for recovery of money paid to Javed to be invested in property, but which was ‘substantially used’ by Javed for his own purposes. The claimants pleaded a case in fraud and fraudulent breach of trust to ‘take advantage’ of section 281(3) of the Insolvency Act 1986, the judgment noted, ‘whereby claims arising from fraud and fraudulent breach of trust are kept alive notwithstanding a bankrupt’s discharge from bankruptcy’.
The siblings, who seek compensation from Javed as their fiduciary, transferred £834,000 to Javed which, under a business plan proposed by the solicitor to the family, would be invested in property with each side – the claimants and Javed – contributing 50% of the capital required. The properties would be purchased by special purpose vehicles controlled by Javed with the claimants’ interest protected by a deed or deeds of trust and both parties sharing the rental income equally.
Considering Javed as a witness, Pymont said Javed was ‘entirely dishonest…by turns argumentative, evasive and untruthful’.
Read more
‘Several times he responded to questions by making long and intemperate speeches of self-justification which made no sense in themselves and did not actually answer the questions put. He maintained the truth of obvious falsehoods. Significantly, much of his oral evidence in disputed areas could not be supported by written records. I can only accept Mr Javed’s evidence on matters in dispute where it is confirmed by contemporaneous documents or is accepted by the claimants, or where it consists of admissions or is otherwise contrary to his interest.’
The judge said he had ‘no doubt’ that the claimants had ‘complete trust and confidence’ in Javed when making the money transfers, as he was a ‘qualified and established solicitor’ and the family ‘valued his professional standing’. But Javed ‘operated as secretively as he could and dishonestly manipulated the situation to his advantage’, the judgment said.
The judge added: ‘Having secured the transfer to his control of the claimants’ money, Mr Javed proceeded to treat the money as if it were his own, maintaining as much secrecy in his dealings and activities as he could get away with and fobbing off enquiries with half-truths and lies to avoid having to give a full account. His temporary success in that respect is, incidentally, further evidence of the trust that the family had placed in him.’
The judge found Javed received the money in his fiduciary capacity and as a constructive trustee. The properties were acquired in breach of trust and fiduciary duty with the claimants’ money being used without their informed consent.
Making the orders sought by the claimants, the judge 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.’
The claimants were granted an order for a money judgment for £834,000. The judge also found the £87,665 rent received in respect of the properties brought by Javed with the claimants’ money was recoverable, minus the payments already received. Proprietary interests in the properties bought by Javed were established and two orders for interest at 8% compounded annually were also made.
