Applicant alleged that his son, the Respondent, had forged his signature on the transfer of a house. Alternatively, if he had signed it, it was void by reason of non est factum alternatively voidable as an unconscionable bargain. Held that Applicant lacked any credibility in his written evidence or in the witness box. However, also held that Respondent had relied upon transcripts of telephone conversations with Applicant which were concocted, so no order for costs made.
Citations:
[2018] UKFTT 443 (PC)
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Land
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.623854