Shaw v Finnimore & Anor [2009] EWHC 367 (Ch) (02 March 2009)

Shaw v Finnimore & Anor [2009] EWHC 367 (Ch) (02 March 2009)

The court found that there was no credible evidence of any profit-sharing agreement entitling the First Defendant to the £643,000. The First Defendant's evidence was inconsistent, uncorroborated, and contradicted by contemporaneous documents and third-party testimony. The Claimant was found to have transferred the money under a mistaken belief or without legal obligation, and the First Defendant had no right to retain it. The sum is recoverable by the Claimant.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 367 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Royston Henry Shaw; First Defendant: Linda Sheila Finnimore; Second Defendant: Mo Frederick Watts
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 March 2009
Procedural Posture
Chancery Division Civil Claim / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim allowed
Legal Topics
Undue Influence, Unconscionable Bargain, Money Had and Received, Misrepresentation, Deceit, Mistake of Fact, Freezing Orders
Equity Contract Law Civil Procedure Undue Influence Unconscionable Bargain Money Had and Received Misrepresentation Deceit +2 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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Royston Henry Shaw

Claimant

Linda Sheila Finnimore

First Defendant

Mo Frederick Watts

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Chancery Division Civil Claim / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a binding profit-sharing agreement entitling the First Defendant to £643,000 from the proceeds of sale of land
  2. 2 Whether the transfer of £643,000 to the First Defendant was pursuant to such an agreement or otherwise recoverable by the Claimant
  3. 3 Whether the Claimant was subject to undue influence or unconscionable conduct by the First Defendant

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that there was no credible evidence of any profit-sharing agreement entitling the First Defendant to the £643,000. The First Defendant's evidence was inconsistent, uncorroborated, and contradicted by contemporaneous documents and third-party testimony. The Claimant was found to have transferred the money under a mistaken belief or without legal obligation, and the First Defendant had no right to retain it. The sum is recoverable by the Claimant.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed

Orders

  • The First Defendant is ordered to repay £643,000 to the Claimant.
  • The freezing order exceptions are terminated.