Hart & Anor v Burbidge & Anor [2014] EWCA Civ 992 (22 July 2014)

Hart & Anor v Burbidge & Anor [2014] EWCA Civ 992 (22 July 2014)

The impugned transactions were procured by presumed undue influence of Mrs Burbidge over the deceased, and neither Mrs Burbidge nor Mr Burbidge rebutted the presumption. Relief was properly granted to restore the estate to the position it would have been in absent undue influence. Mr Burbidge was liable in unjust enrichment. The judge's orders on quantum and costs were justified. Extension of time for appeal was properly granted.

Citation
[2014] EWCA Civ 992
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Kenneth Charles Hart; Claimant/respondent: Paul Roger Hart; Claimant/respondent: Arthur Kenneth Gerald Samways; Claimant/respondent: Graham Douglas Samways; Claimant/respondent: Christine Margaret Garlinge; Claimant/respondent: Peter Kenneth Hart; Claimant/respondent: Lewis Roger Hart; Claimant/respondent: Gemma Louise Hart; Defendant/appellant: Susan Anne Burbidge; Defendant/appellant: Brian Jeffery Burbidge
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court, Chancery Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Undue Influence, Unjust Enrichment, Restitution, Costs, Extension of Time
Equity Probate Property Law Undue Influence Unjust Enrichment Restitution Costs Extension of Time

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kenneth Charles Hart

Claimant/respondent

Paul Roger Hart

Claimant/respondent

Arthur Kenneth Gerald Samways

Claimant/respondent

Graham Douglas Samways

Claimant/respondent

Christine Margaret Garlinge

Claimant/respondent

Peter Kenneth Hart

Claimant/respondent

Lewis Roger Hart

Claimant/respondent

Gemma Louise Hart

Claimant/respondent

Susan Anne Burbidge

Defendant/appellant

Brian Jeffery Burbidge

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court, Chancery Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether impugned transactions were procured by undue influence
  2. 2 Whether Mr Burbidge was liable in unjust enrichment
  3. 3 Appropriateness of restoration orders

Ratio Decidendi

The impugned transactions were procured by presumed undue influence of Mrs Burbidge over the deceased, and neither Mrs Burbidge nor Mr Burbidge rebutted the presumption. Relief was properly granted to restore the estate to the position it would have been in absent undue influence. Mr Burbidge was liable in unjust enrichment. The judge's orders on quantum and costs were justified. Extension of time for appeal was properly granted.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to appeal not set aside
  • Restoration orders upheld