Jennings & Anor v Cairns [2003] EWCA Civ 1935 (18 November 2003)

Jennings & Anor v Cairns [2003] EWCA Civ 1935 (18 November 2003)

The relationship between Enid and Penelope was one of trust and confidence, and the substantial gift was not readily explicable by ordinary motives. The evidential burden shifted to Penelope, who failed to show that Enid made the gift as an exercise of her own free and informed will, particularly as Enid acted under a material mistake as to the effect of the trust and fiscal consequences. The presumption of undue influence was not rebutted, and equitable compensation was appropriate.

Citation
[2003] EWCA Civ 1935
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Carolyn Lewis Jennings; Claimant/appellant: William Davidge Lewis; Defendant/respondent: Penelope Jane Cairns
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 November 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Undue Influence, Gifts Inter Vivos, Enduring Power of Attorney, Equitable Compensation
Equity Trusts and Estates Undue Influence Gifts Inter Vivos Enduring Power of Attorney Equitable Compensation

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Carolyn Lewis Jennings

Claimant/appellant

William Davidge Lewis

Claimant/appellant

Penelope Jane Cairns

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the gift of £171,694 by Enid to Penelope (and trusts for Penelope's children) was procured by undue influence
  2. 2 Whether Penelope discharged the evidential burden to show the gift was made of Enid's free and informed will
  3. 3 Whether equitable compensation was appropriate relief

Ratio Decidendi

The relationship between Enid and Penelope was one of trust and confidence, and the substantial gift was not readily explicable by ordinary motives. The evidential burden shifted to Penelope, who failed to show that Enid made the gift as an exercise of her own free and informed will, particularly as Enid acted under a material mistake as to the effect of the trust and fiscal consequences. The presumption of undue influence was not rebutted, and equitable compensation was appropriate.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs assessed at £12,000 to be paid within 28 days
  • Permission to apply for leave to appeal to the House of Lords refused