Hackett v Crown Prosecution Service & Anor

Hackett v Crown Prosecution Service & Anor

The transfer of the house from the claimant to the second defendant was set aside on the ground of presumed undue influence. There was a relationship of influence, the transaction called for explanation, and the CPS failed to prove the claimant acted with full, free and informed thought, particularly given her vulnerabilities and the inadequacy of independent legal advice. The source of funds for the house was found to be legitimate savings from the claimant’s late husband, not proceeds of crime. The claim based on non est factum failed due to lack of evidence as to the claimant’s understanding at the time of signing.

Parties
Claimant: Violet Hackett; First Defendant: Crown Prosecution Service; Second Defendant: David Hackett
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil (application Under Criminal Justice Act 1988) / Judgment After Contested Application
Outcome
Claim for presumed undue influence succeeds; claim for non est factum fails.
Legal Topics
Presumed Undue Influence, Non Est Factum, Confiscation Proceedings, Third Party Property Claims, Appointment of Enforcement Receiver
Equity Criminal Law Property Law Presumed Undue Influence Non Est Factum Confiscation Proceedings Third Party Property Claims Appointment of Enforcement Receiver

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Violet Hackett

Claimant

Crown Prosecution Service

First Defendant

David Hackett

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (application Under Criminal Justice Act 1988) / Judgment After Contested Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the transfer of property from the claimant to the second defendant should be set aside on grounds of presumed undue influence and/or non est factum
  2. 2 Whether the source of funds for the property purchase was legitimate or derived from criminal activity

Ratio Decidendi

The transfer of the house from the claimant to the second defendant was set aside on the ground of presumed undue influence. There was a relationship of influence, the transaction called for explanation, and the CPS failed to prove the claimant acted with full, free and informed thought, particularly given her vulnerabilities and the inadequacy of independent legal advice. The source of funds for the house was found to be legitimate savings from the claimant’s late husband, not proceeds of crime. The claim based on non est factum failed due to lack of evidence as to the claimant’s understanding at the time of signing.

Court Disposition

Claim for presumed undue influence succeeds; claim for non est factum fails.

Orders

  • The transfer of the house from the claimant to the second defendant is set aside on grounds of presumed undue influence.