Crossfield v Jackson [2014] EWCA Civ 1548

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | November 2015 #154

The dispute between the parties concerned the ownership of a four-bedroom London apartment (the property). Monica Elaine Crossfield (the appellant) had become the council tenant of the property in 1987 under a secure tenancy with the London Borough of Lambeth (LBC). By a lease dated 26 August 2003 (the lease), LBC demised the property to her for a term of 125 years in consideration of a premium of £109,500 (the premium). The premium was calculated by the market value of the property, minus a right to buy discount by virtue of the appellant being a secure tenant. The premium was provided ...

Undue Influence: Follow your nose

Amanda Noyce examines Hart v Burbidge [2014] and its lessons on the presumption of undue influence and lifetime gifts ‘Although the law of undue influence in relation to probate cases is a difficult hurdle to overcome, the law relating to lifetime gifts, where the donor may (or may not) now happen to be dead, may …
This post is only available to members.

Hart & anr v Burbidge & anr

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | October 2014 #143

In 2006 the deceased made a will directing a sale of two properties, No 7 and No 43 (the properties), with the proceeds to be shared between her sons (the Harts). On the same date the deceased gave another property, Unit 15, to her daughter and son-in-law, Mr and Mrs Burbidge, and also released them from a debt of £44,000. In 2007 the deceased made a further will leaving No 7 to the Harts and No 43 to her siblings and any grandchildren surviving her with the residue to be divided equally amongst her children.

Having decided to live with the Burbidges, the deceased transferred her...

Hart & anr v Burbidge & ors [2014] EWCA Civ 992 On appeal from: [2013] EWHC 1628 (Ch)

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | October 2014 #143

and 

1. ARTHUR KENNETH GERALD SAMWAYS
2. GRAHAM DOUGLAS SAMWAYS
3. CHRISTINE MARGARET GARLINGE
4. PETER KENNETH HART
5. LEWIS ROGER HART
6. GEMMA LOUISE HART

v

1. SUSAN ANNE BURBIDGE
2. BRIAN JEFFERY BURBIDGE
3. KENNETH CHARLES HART
4. PAUL ROGER HART

The appellants appealed a decision in two actions that had been tried together ...

Undue Influence: After Etridge

Nigel Thomas examines unconscionable bargains and presumed undue influence, with reference to Evans v Lloyd ‘This was a case of presumed undue influence and that being so then the claimants were required to prove (i) a relationship of trust and confidence and (ii) a transaction that calls for explanation.’ Some might be surprised that cases …
This post is only available to members.

Hart & anr v Burbidge & ors; Samways & ors v Burbidge & ors [2013] EWHC 1628 (Ch)

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | September 2013 #132

The deceased, Phyllis Hart née Samways (W) died on 7 November 2008 aged 86. Her husband (H) had died in January 2005. They left three children, two sons, Kenneth (K) and Paul Hart (P) and a daughter Susan Burbidge (S), who all have children of their own. W had a twin sister (J) who died four weeks after her and three other surviving siblings: Arthur, Graham and Christine (the Samways). Some eight years before he died H wished to sell the family firm to one of his children, but only S and her husband (B) were prepared to take it over on his terms, which did not include the transfer of the...

Evans & ors v Lloyd & anr [2013] EWHC 1725 (Ch)

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | September 2013 #132

Wynne Evans (Wynne) died on 2 September 2006 at the age of 79. He had worked on a farm from the age of 14. The farm latterly belonged to the defendants, David Lloyd (David) and his wife Elizabeth Lloyd (Elizabeth). Previously it had belonged to David’s parents and grandparents.

There was an issue as to whether Wynne had died testate or intestate. The claimants argued he died intestate but the defendants argued that he died testate and that the will, of which David was residuary beneficiary, had been lost.

The first claimant Howell Evans (Howell) is Wynne’s sole ...

Presumed Undue Influence: When advice is neither necessary nor sufficient

Ruth Hughes reviews case law to present the up-to-date position on presumed undue influence ‘In addition to a relationship of influence, in order for the presumption of undue influence to apply to a transaction, the transaction must be such that it “calls for an explanation”.’Equity protects so that injustice may not be perpetrated. In the …
This post is only available to members.