Deputy Master Bowles said that the properties should fall into Abbas’s estate to be inherited by Ms Teixeira and her children.
The documents, declaring that the properties were not entirely Abbas’s, were a sham designed to prevent his widow from accessing most of his wealth, said the judge.
Ms Teixeira, who is also a birth doula, met Abbas at The Gate in Notting Hill, the restaurant he owned at the time, and began dating him in 2001.
Abbas was diagnosed with cancer in 2009 and died in May 2012. His last will left his estate in third shares to his widow and two children.
But the court heard that the estate was “substantially diminished” because of documents signed before Abbas died that transferred the property rights to other family members.
‘Obvious shams’
In court, Alexander Learmonth KC, Ms Teixeira’s barrister, argued that the documents were “obviously shams”.
He pointed to an attendance note from a meeting between Abbas’s solicitor and Amir, when Abbas was “seriously unwell” at home.
The lawyer’s note stated: “[Amir’s] concern was what would happen if Abbas passed away and his wife disappeared with the two children to Brazil.
“How could they prevent this, and how could they prevent her from having access to the funds from the property assets?”
A subsequent note added: “Amir confirmed his main intention was to secure Abbas’s children’s welfare because he was certain that any assets passed over to Abbas’s wife would be dissipated.”
However, Amir claimed that the four properties, including Ms Teixeira’s former homes, were only ever put into Abbas’s name for “cultural reasons” because he was the elder brother.
‘False narrative’
Giving judgment on the dispute, Deputy Master Bowles rejected Amir’s explanations of the trust documents as fiction designed to cover up the truth.
“They were a means to an end, that end being to present Abbas’s estate as being much smaller than was the case, and to do so by the purported confirmation of informal trust arrangements that had no basis in fact,” he said.
“Contrary to the false narrative set out in the recitals to declarations of trust, the properties are not and never have been held on the informal trusts alleged in those recitals and in the declarations of trust.
“The extrinsic evidence fully supports the view that Abbas has always been the legal and beneficial owner of the properties.”
The court heard that Abbas’s will leaves the estate in equal shares to his widow and children, but that the children only inherit once they reach a “designated age”.
A claim by Ms Teixeira to increase what she will receive under the will is set to take place at a later date, with her two children both supporting her.