Bird & Anor v Lantern Recovery Llp & Ors [2021] EWHC 1379 (Ch) (12 May 2021)

Bird & Anor v Lantern Recovery Llp & Ors [2021] EWHC 1379 (Ch) (12 May 2021)

The claimants failed to prove that the land at Blanche Lane or the £164,836 loans formed part of the deceased's estate; Ray was found to be the absolute owner. The court found that the deceased lent £150,000 to the 1997 Settlement trustees and £1 million to Lantern at interest, both repayable to the estate. The court held that most dividend waivers were procured by undue influence and set them aside, except for two which were found to be forgeries or not covering the relevant dividends. The counterclaims by the defendants were dismissed as fabricated or unsupported. The credibility of Ray as a witness was found to be lacking, and the court preferred the claimants' evidence where relevant.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 1379 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: David Walter Bird; Claimant: Sharon Montgomery; Defendant: Lantern Recovery LLP; Defendant: Lantern Recovery Specialists PLC; Defendant: Lantern Services (Holdings) Limited; Defendant: Raymond Michael Coleman; Defendant: Lee Coleman; Defendant: Craig Coleman
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 May 2021
Procedural Posture
High Court Chancery Division Business and Property Court Business List / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claimants succeed in part; counterclaims dismissed.
Legal Topics
Undue Influence, Constructive Trusts, Beneficial Ownership, Lifetime Gifts and Loans, Dividend Waivers, Counterclaims in Probate, Inheritance Tax
Equity and Trusts Probate Company Law Undue Influence Constructive Trusts Beneficial Ownership Lifetime Gifts and Loans Dividend Waivers +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 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Walter Bird

Claimant

Sharon Montgomery

Claimant

Lantern Recovery LLP

Defendant

Lantern Recovery Specialists PLC

Defendant

Lantern Services (Holdings) Limited

Defendant

Raymond Michael Coleman

Defendant

Lee Coleman

Defendant

Craig Coleman

Defendant

Procedural Posture

High Court Chancery Division Business and Property Court Business List / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether certain assets formed part of the deceased's estate or were held absolutely by the defendant(s)
  2. 2 Whether lifetime transfers by the deceased were loans or gifts and if they should be set aside for undue influence
  3. 3 Whether dividend waivers were valid or procured by undue influence

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to prove that the land at Blanche Lane or the £164,836 loans formed part of the deceased's estate; Ray was found to be the absolute owner. The court found that the deceased lent £150,000 to the 1997 Settlement trustees and £1 million to Lantern at interest, both repayable to the estate. The court held that most dividend waivers were procured by undue influence and set them aside, except for two which were found to be forgeries or not covering the relevant dividends. The counterclaims by the defendants were dismissed as fabricated or unsupported. The credibility of Ray as a witness was found to be lacking, and the court preferred the claimants' evidence where relevant.

Court Disposition

Claimants succeed in part; counterclaims dismissed.

Orders

  • Defendants to repay £150,000 loan to the 1997 Settlement trustees to the estate.
  • Defendants to repay £1 million loan to Lantern at 8.5% interest (with interest on £300,000 part at 4.75%) to the estate.