Jennings and Another v Cairns: CA 18 Nov 2003

Nieces had fallen out over their aunt’s estate. One niece had been closer than the others, and despite not properly understanding what she was doing the deceased had made lifetime gifts to the niece who was now executor. She appealed a finding of having an obligation as executor to reinstate the estate despite not herself having misled the aunt.
Held: The court had to undertake a balanced assessment of all the relevant circumstances in deciding whether undue influence had been established and whether it had been rebutted by the niece. The niece might have discharged that burden by showing that her aunt had made an informed choice, but the niece had not done this. Mistake was not a complete answer merely because advice independent of the niece had been given to Enid.
Parties should recognise that it is the practice of the Court of Appeal judges to pre-read case, and therefore, agreed lists of authorities must be supplied as required 28 days before the hearing and in any event no less than eight days before. The court recognised the difficulties of acceding to the 28 day requirement, but the eight day period must be complied with. Parties had not properly complied with the 2001 direction on citation of authorities. That direction must be followed.
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers MR
Times 25-Nov-2003, [2003] EWCA Civ 1935
Bailii
Civil Procedure Rules 15.11
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedPractice Direction on the Citation of Authorities LCJ 9-Apr-2001
The court laid down rules for restricting the citation of authorities, which rules are to be applied in all courts except criminal courts. The increase in the number of judgments series being available had come to be problematic for all involved, . .
Appeal fromRe Davidge 2003
Family members said that another niece had obtained gifts from the deceased by the exercise of undue influence. Several substantial gifts had been made to a niece and her family who had been more like a daughter to the deceased. Correspondence . .

Cited by:
CitedGoodchild v Branbury and others CA 15-Dec-2006
Application was made to set aside transfers of land for undue influence, and that the second transfere was aware of the deficiency in the first.
Held: The appeal suceeded, and the transfers were set aside. Chadwick LJ said: ‘A gift which is . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 January 2021; Ref: scu.189953