Yedina v Yedin & Anor

Yedina v Yedin & Anor

The Deed is valid and enforceable; Mr Yedin understood and voluntarily executed it, and none of the pleaded defences (non est factum, undue influence, unconscionable bargain, lack of capacity, uncertainty, or mistake) are made out. Skelling Ltd was and is beneficially owned and controlled by Mr Yedin, not Mr Goncharov. Mrs Yedina is entitled to damages for repudiation of the Deed. Mr Yedin's counterclaim for a declaration of trust fails for lack of evidence of intention or agreement to create such a trust.

Parties
Claimant: Iryna Yedina; First Defendant: Oleksander Yedin; Second Defendant: Skelling Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 December 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil (contract/trust/property) / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim allowed; counterclaim dismissed
Legal Topics
Repudiation of Contract, Non Est Factum, Undue Influence, Unconscionable Bargain, Capacity to Contract, Beneficial Ownership, Nominee Arrangements, Rectification, Damages Assessment
Contract Law Trust Law Property Law Repudiation of Contract Non Est Factum Undue Influence Unconscionable Bargain Capacity to Contract +4 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 6 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Iryna Yedina

Claimant

Oleksander Yedin

First Defendant

Skelling Ltd

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (contract/trust/property) / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Deed executed by Mr Yedin is valid and enforceable
  2. 2 Whether Mr Yedin repudiated the Deed and is liable for damages
  3. 3 Whether Skelling Ltd holds Flat 2B and its proceeds as nominee for Mr Yedin or in its own right

Ratio Decidendi

The Deed is valid and enforceable; Mr Yedin understood and voluntarily executed it, and none of the pleaded defences (non est factum, undue influence, unconscionable bargain, lack of capacity, uncertainty, or mistake) are made out. Skelling Ltd was and is beneficially owned and controlled by Mr Yedin, not Mr Goncharov. Mrs Yedina is entitled to damages for repudiation of the Deed. Mr Yedin's counterclaim for a declaration of trust fails for lack of evidence of intention or agreement to create such a trust.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; counterclaim dismissed

Orders

  • Declaration that the Deed is valid and enforceable
  • Damages awarded to Mrs Yedina in the sum of £2,024,777.98 plus inquiry as to ATED damages