Evans & Ors v Lloyd & Anor

Evans & Ors v Lloyd & Anor

The claim fails because the relationship between Wynne Evans and the Lloyds was not one of dependency or ascendancy in the relevant legal sense, and the gifts were explained by normal human motivation. There was no evidence of undue influence or unconscionable conduct. The claim is also barred by laches due to unreasonable delay and detrimental reliance by the defendants.

Parties
Claimant: Howell Evans; Claimant: David Bernard Evans; Claimant: Helen Brenda Evans; Defendant: David Edward Rees Lloyd; Defendant: Elizabeth Eleanor Lloyd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed; counterclaim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Undue Influence, Unconscionable Transactions, Gifts, Laches, Estoppel, Probate

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 29 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Howell Evans

Claimant

David Bernard Evans

Claimant

Helen Brenda Evans

Claimant

David Edward Rees Lloyd

Defendant

Elizabeth Eleanor Lloyd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether gifts of agricultural holdings by Wynne Evans to the Lloyds should be set aside for undue influence or as unconscionable transactions
  2. 2 Whether Wynne Evans died testate or intestate

Ratio Decidendi

The claim fails because the relationship between Wynne Evans and the Lloyds was not one of dependency or ascendancy in the relevant legal sense, and the gifts were explained by normal human motivation. There was no evidence of undue influence or unconscionable conduct. The claim is also barred by laches due to unreasonable delay and detrimental reliance by the defendants.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; counterclaim dismissed.