The second defendant had, under the undue influence of the first defendant sold him her house at an undervalue. She also asserted non est factum. He then charged it to the claimant. The court was asked which innocent party should prevail. She said she had been in actual occupation at the time of the charge. The bank said that the defendant was estopped from raising now issues which could have been brought in the earlier proceedings.
Judges:
Newey J
Citations:
[2010] EWHC 2812 (Ch)
Links:
Statutes:
Land Registration Act 1925 70(1)(g)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Henderson v Henderson 20-Jul-1843
Abuse of Process and Re-litigation
The court set down the principles to be applied in abuse of process cases, where a matter was raised again which should have been dealt with in earlier proceedings.
Sir James Wigram VC said: ‘In trying this question I believe I state the rule . .
Cited – Thoday v Thoday CA 1964
The court discussed the difference between issue estoppel, and action estoppel: ‘The particular type of estoppel relied upon by the husband is estoppel per rem judicatam. This is a generic term which in modern law includes two species. The first . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land, Undue Influence
Updated: 26 August 2022; Ref: scu.425781