Macklin & Ors v Dowsett

Macklin & Ors v Dowsett

The Court of Appeal held that Mr Dowsett had established, on a prima facie basis, both elements required for undue influence: a relationship of ascendancy and dependency existed at the time of the 1999 agreement, and the transaction was not readily explicable by the relationship. The Deputy Judge applied the wrong legal test by focusing on manifest disadvantage rather than inexplicability. The option agreement was fundamentally inequitable and should be set aside.

Parties
Respondent: William Henry Macklin; Respondent: Mary Barbara Macklin; Respondent: Stuart James Macklin; Appellant: Michael John Dowsett
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 June 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division)
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Undue Influence, Option Agreements, Life Tenancy, Contractual Relationships
Equity Property Law Undue Influence Option Agreements Life Tenancy Contractual Relationships

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

Parties

William Henry Macklin

Respondent

Mary Barbara Macklin

Respondent

Stuart James Macklin

Respondent

Michael John Dowsett

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1999 option agreement should be set aside for undue influence
  2. 2 Whether the Macklins had acquired ascendancy or influence over Mr Dowsett at the time of the agreement
  3. 3 Whether the transaction was not readily explicable by the relationship between the parties

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that Mr Dowsett had established, on a prima facie basis, both elements required for undue influence: a relationship of ascendancy and dependency existed at the time of the 1999 agreement, and the transaction was not readily explicable by the relationship. The Deputy Judge applied the wrong legal test by focusing on manifest disadvantage rather than inexplicability. The option agreement was fundamentally inequitable and should be set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The 1999 option agreement is set aside for undue influence.
  • Costs here and below to the appellant, subject to assessment.