Hodson v Hodson & Ors [2006] EWHC 2878 (Ch) (07 November 2006)

Hodson v Hodson & Ors [2006] EWHC 2878 (Ch) (07 November 2006)

Mrs. Hodson was dependent on Mark and Kim Hodson, who stood in fiduciary positions. Substantial transfers of her assets to them, without independent advice or proper explanation, raise a presumption of undue influence and breach of fiduciary duty. The defendants failed to rebut this presumption. Neil Cloutman and Tudor Rose were negligent in failing to advise Mrs. Hodson independently and in allowing the transfers without proper authority or advice. All such transfers are set aside and the defendants are accountable for the assets or their value.

Citation
[2006] EWHC 2878 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Paul Simon Graham Hodson (as personal representative of the estate of Ruby Mary Hodson (deceased)); First Defendant: Mark William Hodson (a bankrupt); Second Defendant: Kim Marie Hodson; Third Defendant: Hodson (UK) Developments Limited; Fourth Defendant: Neil Cloutman; Fifth Defendant: Tudor Rose (A firm)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 November 2006
Procedural Posture
Chancery Division Civil Claim / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the claimant against the first, second, fourth, and fifth defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, undue influence, knowing receipt, and negligence. All impugned transfers set aside. Defendants are accountable for the value of assets transferred. Order for delivery up of antique furniture to the claimant.
Legal Topics
Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Undue Influence, Knowing Receipt, Negligence of Solicitors, Setting Aside Transactions, Tracing Assets
Equity Trusts and Estates Professional Negligence Breach of Fiduciary Duty Undue Influence Knowing Receipt Negligence of Solicitors Setting Aside Transactions +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 14
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Simon Graham Hodson (as personal representative of the estate of Ruby Mary Hodson (deceased))

Claimant

Mark William Hodson (a bankrupt)

First Defendant

Kim Marie Hodson

Second Defendant

Hodson (UK) Developments Limited

Third Defendant

Neil Cloutman

Fourth Defendant

Tudor Rose (A firm)

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Chancery Division Civil Claim / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether transfers of assets from Mrs. Hodson to Mark and Kim Hodson were procured by undue influence or breach of fiduciary duty
  2. 2 Whether Kim Hodson was a knowing recipient of assets transferred in breach of fiduciary duty
  3. 3 Whether Neil Cloutman and Tudor Rose were negligent or in breach of trust in relation to the transfers and advice given to Mrs. Hodson

Ratio Decidendi

Mrs. Hodson was dependent on Mark and Kim Hodson, who stood in fiduciary positions. Substantial transfers of her assets to them, without independent advice or proper explanation, raise a presumption of undue influence and breach of fiduciary duty. The defendants failed to rebut this presumption. Neil Cloutman and Tudor Rose were negligent in failing to advise Mrs. Hodson independently and in allowing the transfers without proper authority or advice. All such transfers are set aside and the defendants are accountable for the assets or their value.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the claimant against the first, second, fourth, and fifth defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, undue influence, knowing receipt, and negligence. All impugned transfers set aside. Defendants are accountable for the value of assets transferred. Order for delivery up of antique furniture to the claimant.

Orders

  • All transfers of assets from Mrs. Hodson to Mark and Kim Hodson, or to any other party by Mark as attorney, are set aside.
  • Mark and Kim Hodson are accountable for all sums or property so transferred.