Moursi v Doherty WTLR(w) 2019-05

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Web Only

Crossfield v Jackson [2014] EWCA Civ 1548

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | November 2015 #154

The dispute between the parties concerned the ownership of a four-bedroom London apartment (the property). Monica Elaine Crossfield (the appellant) had become the council tenant of the property in 1987 under a secure tenancy with the London Borough of Lambeth (LBC). By a lease dated 26 August 2003 (the lease), LBC demised the property to her for a term of 125 years in consideration of a premium of £109,500 (the premium). The premium was calculated by the market value of the property, minus a right to buy discount by virtue of the appellant being a secure tenant. The premium was provided ...

Hart & anr v Burbidge & ors [2014] EWCA Civ 992 On appeal from: [2013] EWHC 1628 (Ch)

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | October 2014 #143

and 

1. ARTHUR KENNETH GERALD SAMWAYS
2. GRAHAM DOUGLAS SAMWAYS
3. CHRISTINE MARGARET GARLINGE
4. PETER KENNETH HART
5. LEWIS ROGER HART
6. GEMMA LOUISE HART

v

1. SUSAN ANNE BURBIDGE
2. BRIAN JEFFERY BURBIDGE
3. KENNETH CHARLES HART
4. PAUL ROGER HART

The appellants appealed a decision in two actions that had been tried together ...

Hart & anr v Burbidge & ors; Samways & ors v Burbidge & ors [2013] EWHC 1628 (Ch)

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | September 2013 #132

The deceased, Phyllis Hart née Samways (W) died on 7 November 2008 aged 86. Her husband (H) had died in January 2005. They left three children, two sons, Kenneth (K) and Paul Hart (P) and a daughter Susan Burbidge (S), who all have children of their own. W had a twin sister (J) who died four weeks after her and three other surviving siblings: Arthur, Graham and Christine (the Samways). Some eight years before he died H wished to sell the family firm to one of his children, but only S and her husband (B) were prepared to take it over on his terms, which did not include the transfer of the...

Presumed Undue Influence: When advice is neither necessary nor sufficient

Ruth Hughes reviews case law to present the up-to-date position on presumed undue influence ‘In addition to a relationship of influence, in order for the presumption of undue influence to apply to a transaction, the transaction must be such that it “calls for an explanation”.’Equity protects so that injustice may not be perpetrated. In the …
This post is only available to members.