Hackett v Crown Prosecution Service & Anor [2011] EWHC 1170 (Admin) (10 May 2011)

Hackett v Crown Prosecution Service & Anor [2011] EWHC 1170 (Admin) (10 May 2011)

The transfer of the house from the claimant to the second defendant is set aside for presumed undue influence. The court found a relationship of influence, a transaction calling for explanation, and that the CPS failed to prove the claimant acted with full, free, and informed thought, particularly given her vulnerabilities and the inadequacy of independent advice. The property was purchased with legitimate funds from the claimant's late husband, not proceeds of crime.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 1170 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Violet Hackett; First Defendant: Crown Prosecution Service; Second Defendant: David Hackett
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Application to Set Aside Property Transfer and Enforcement Receivership Application / High Court Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Claim allowed; transfer of the house set aside for presumed undue influence; CPS's application for enforcement receivership over the house dismissed.
Legal Topics
Presumed Undue Influence, Non Est Factum, Confiscation Order, Third Party Property Claims, Enforcement Receivership
Equity Criminal Law Property Law Presumed Undue Influence Non Est Factum Confiscation Order Third Party Property Claims Enforcement Receivership

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Violet Hackett

Claimant

Crown Prosecution Service

First Defendant

David Hackett

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application to Set Aside Property Transfer and Enforcement Receivership Application / High Court Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the transfer of 2 New View Cottages from the claimant to the second defendant should be set aside for presumed undue influence and/or non est factum
  2. 2 Whether the property was purchased with proceeds of crime or legitimate funds
  3. 3 Whether the CPS can rebut the presumption of undue influence

Ratio Decidendi

The transfer of the house from the claimant to the second defendant is set aside for presumed undue influence. The court found a relationship of influence, a transaction calling for explanation, and that the CPS failed to prove the claimant acted with full, free, and informed thought, particularly given her vulnerabilities and the inadequacy of independent advice. The property was purchased with legitimate funds from the claimant's late husband, not proceeds of crime.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; transfer of the house set aside for presumed undue influence; CPS's application for enforcement receivership over the house dismissed.

Orders

  • The transfer of 2 New View Cottages from the claimant to the second defendant is set aside.
  • No enforcement receiver to be appointed over the house.