Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2013] All ER (D) 94 (Jun)
Neutral Citation: [2013] EWHC 1628 (Ch)
Court: Chancery Division
Judge:

Sir William Blackburne

Representation Charles Auld (instructed by Withy King LLP) for the claimants in the first claim.
  Rosanna Foskett (instructed by Wilsons Solicitors LLP) for the Samways.
  Paul Emenson (instructed by Blanchards Bailey LLP) for the defendants.
Judgment Dates: 12 June 2013

Catchwords

Equity - Undue influence - Presumption of undue influence - Mother and daughter - Claimants in first action being sons of deceased - Claimants in second action being siblings of deceased - First defendant (S) being daughter of deceased - Second defendant (B) being husband of first defendant - Claimants bringing action against the defendants alleging that S exercised undue influence on deceased resulting in sale of deceased's properties and purchase of home for S and B - Whether deceased unduly influenced - Whether S rebutting presumption of undue influence - Whether B liable for any undue influence exercised by S.

The Case

Equity Undue influence. The claimants brought claims against the daughter of the deceased (S) and her husband (B) alleging that she had exerted undue influence on the deceased in connection with a series of transactions which, they alleged, had diminished their gifts from the estate pursuant to a will left by the deceased. The Chancery Division held that, on the facts, S had failed to show that the deceased had acted fully independently of undue influence when she had entered into the impugned transactions. B shared equally in the benefits which resulted from the undue influence with full knowledge of the fact that there was a relationship of influence. Accordingly, he was obliged to restore the deceased's estate.

Practice Areas

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.