Caws & Ors v Boyce & Ors

Caws & Ors v Boyce & Ors

The claimants failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities and with cogent evidence, that the transfer of the Plot was procured by duress, undue influence, or fraudulent misrepresentation. The evidence showed the transfer was voluntary, proceeds were accounted for, and the claimants engaged in dishonest property dealings and mortgage fraud. The action fails and must be dismissed.

Parties
Claimant: Jacqueline Caws; Claimant: Shirley Caws; Claimant: David Duff; Defendant: Barry Boyce; Defendant: Nicola Hoare; Defendant: B M Samuel Group Ltd; Defendant: Gary MacNeill
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 March 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment
Outcome
Action dismissed
Legal Topics
Duress, Undue Influence, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Nominee Ownership, Mortgage Fraud, Trusts, Clean Hands Doctrine
Property Law Equity Civil Procedure Duress Undue Influence Fraudulent Misrepresentation Nominee Ownership Mortgage Fraud +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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jacqueline Caws

Claimant

Shirley Caws

Claimant

David Duff

Claimant

Barry Boyce

Defendant

Nicola Hoare

Defendant

B M Samuel Group Ltd

Defendant

Gary MacNeill

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the transfer of the Plot was procured by duress, undue influence, or fraudulent misrepresentation
  2. 2 Whether the claimants were forced to part with property against their will
  3. 3 Whether the defendants accounted for the proceeds of sale

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities and with cogent evidence, that the transfer of the Plot was procured by duress, undue influence, or fraudulent misrepresentation. The evidence showed the transfer was voluntary, proceeds were accounted for, and the claimants engaged in dishonest property dealings and mortgage fraud. The action fails and must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed

Orders

  • Action against first, second, and fourth defendants dismissed
  • Third defendant previously obtained summary judgment and played no part since March 2004