Bowser v Caley and others: ChD 16 Mar 2006

The claimant alleged that the transfer by him of his land to his sister and her husband had been obtained by any of several wrongful means and should be set aside.
Held: The allegations of undue influence failed. The claimant did not establish that the sister had sufficient influence over him, and nor had he established the plea of non est factum or mistake. As to the trust alleged: ‘for a constructive trust to arise it must be established that there was a common intention or understanding that the claimant was to have some beneficial interest in the property. If the claimant has acted to his detriment in reliance on this intention or understanding a constructive trust or proprietary estoppel arises. There is little difference between a constructive trust or a proprietary estoppel though it has been said that there is a greater flexibility in the remedy in the case of an estoppel. ‘ Such a trust arose in the nature of a life interest in the proceeds of sale. However the costs of the actin would be likely to deplete any fund available.
[2006] EWHC B3 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRoyal Bank of Scotland v Etridge (No 2); Barclays Bank plc v Harris; Midland Bank plc v Wallace, etc HL 11-Oct-2001
Wives had charged the family homes to secure their husband’s business borrowings, and now resisted possession orders, claiming undue influence.
Held: Undue influence is an equitable protection created to undo the effect of excess influence of . .
CitedAnthony Papouis v Valerie Gibson-West ChD 4-Mar-2004
The deceased had purchased her flat using the discount available as a tenant, and money contributed by the defendant. A deed of trust had been executed, which the claimant now asserted had been obtained by undue influence.
Held: The principles . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 18 March 2021; Ref: scu.241303