Vale v Armstrong, Armstrong: ChD 21 May 2004

The claimant sought to set aside a transfer of his house to the defendants made at an undervalue and under an enduring power of attorney, who had charged it to raise money for their business. He had received independent advice.
Held: The transaction was disadvantageous to the claimant and there was therefore a presumption of undue influence. However there was also evidence of independent advice etc to rebut that presumption, but ‘it by no means follows that prior legal advice rebuts the presumption.’
The independent advice had failed to bring home the true disadvantages of the transaction to the claimant. The defendant failed to rebut the presumption, and it was set aside.
Mr. Justice Evans-Lombe
[2004] EWHC 1160 (Ch)
Bailii
Citing:
CitedCIBC Mortgages Plc v Pitt and Another HL 21-Oct-1993
Mrs Pitt resisted an order for possession of the house saying that she had signed the mortgage only after misrepresentations by and the undue infuence of her husband who was acting as the bank’s agent.
Held: A bank was not put on enquiry as to . .
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 . .
CitedCheese v Thomas CA 24-Aug-1993
A transaction entered into was manifestly disadvantageous to him. After a finding of undue influence, losses on the sale of a property are to be shared by both parties, so as to restore the parties to their original positions as near as might be. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 January 2021; Ref: scu.197075