Mackay v Wesley

Mackay v Wesley

The claim was dismissed because the appointment of the Claimant as trustee was not a voluntary disposition by her, but a unilateral act of the Mauritian trustees, and not susceptible to rescission for mistake, undue influence, lack of capacity, or non est factum. The Claimant's acceptance was not necessary for the appointment to take effect. Partial rescission (setting aside only her appointment) was not available as it would create an impermissible mismatch with the deed. No sufficient mistake, undue influence, or incapacity was established on the evidence. Relief was refused on all grounds.

Parties
Claimant: Nicola Suzanne Mackay; Defendant: David Stuart Wesley
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Part 7 Claim (treated as Part 8) / Disposal Hearing and Summary Judgment Application
Outcome
Claim and application for summary judgment dismissed. Permission to appeal and to amend refused.
Legal Topics
Trustee Appointment, Rescission for Mistake, Undue Influence, Non Est Factum, Capacity, Capital Gains Tax Liability, Summary Judgment, Partial Rescission, Trust Law (isle of Man/england)
Equity and Trusts Tax Law Civil Procedure Trustee Appointment Rescission for Mistake Undue Influence Non Est Factum Capacity +4 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 5 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 14
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nicola Suzanne Mackay

Claimant

David Stuart Wesley

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Part 7 Claim (treated as Part 8) / Disposal Hearing and Summary Judgment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appointment of the Claimant as trustee should be rescinded or declared void on grounds of undue influence, mistake, lack of capacity, or non est factum;
  2. 2 Whether the Claimant's appointment as trustee was a voluntary disposition or transaction susceptible to equitable rescission;
  3. 3 Whether partial rescission (setting aside only the Claimant's appointment) is available;

Ratio Decidendi

The claim was dismissed because the appointment of the Claimant as trustee was not a voluntary disposition by her, but a unilateral act of the Mauritian trustees, and not susceptible to rescission for mistake, undue influence, lack of capacity, or non est factum. The Claimant's acceptance was not necessary for the appointment to take effect. Partial rescission (setting aside only her appointment) was not available as it would create an impermissible mismatch with the deed. No sufficient mistake, undue influence, or incapacity was established on the evidence. Relief was refused on all grounds.

Court Disposition

Claim and application for summary judgment dismissed. Permission to appeal and to amend refused.

Orders

  • Claim dismissed.
  • Application for summary judgment dismissed.