Goodchild v Bradbury & Ors

Goodchild v Bradbury & Ors

The presumption of undue influence was not rebutted as the evidence did not show the appellant made the gift after full, free, and informed thought. The subsequent transferee had notice of the circumstances. Both transfers were set aside.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Leslie Goodchild; Defendant/respondent: Shane Bradbury; Defendant/respondent: Stephen Hillier
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 December 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; both transfers set aside.
Legal Topics
Undue Influence, Setting Aside Transfers, Constructive Notice, Gifts Inter Vivos
Equity Property Law Undue Influence Setting Aside Transfers Constructive Notice Gifts Inter Vivos

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leslie Goodchild

Claimant/appellant

Shane Bradbury

Defendant/respondent

Stephen Hillier

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the transfer of property by the appellant to his great nephew was procured by undue influence and should be set aside
  2. 2 Whether the subsequent transferee took with notice of the circumstances rendering the transfer liable to be set aside

Ratio Decidendi

The presumption of undue influence was not rebutted as the evidence did not show the appellant made the gift after full, free, and informed thought. The subsequent transferee had notice of the circumstances. Both transfers were set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; both transfers set aside.

Orders

  • First transfer from appellant to Shane Bradbury set aside.
  • Second transfer from Shane Bradbury to Stephen Hillier set aside.