Trustees of Beardsley Theobalds Retirement Benefit Scheme v Yardley

Trustees of Beardsley Theobalds Retirement Benefit Scheme v Yardley

The guarantee is not enforceable against Mr Yardley because he signed under undue influence and misrepresentation by Mr C. Mooney, was not given the opportunity for independent legal advice, and genuinely believed he was not signing as guarantor. The claimants had constructive knowledge of the undue influence and failed to ensure Mr Yardley was properly advised. The defence of non est factum also applies, as Mr Yardley made a fundamental mistake as to the nature of the document he was signing.

Parties
Claimant: Trustees of Beardsley Theobalds Retirement Benefit Scheme; Defendant: Mr Joshua Yardley
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 September 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Guarantee Enforcement, Undue Influence, Non Est Factum, Misrepresentation, Execution of Deeds, Section 17 Notices, Lease Agreements
Contract Law Landlord and Tenant Law Guarantee Enforcement Undue Influence Non Est Factum Misrepresentation Execution of Deeds Section 17 Notices +1 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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Trustees of Beardsley Theobalds Retirement Benefit Scheme

Claimant

Mr Joshua Yardley

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the guarantee signed by Mr Yardley is enforceable
  2. 2 Whether Mr Yardley signed the guarantee under undue influence or misrepresentation
  3. 3 Whether the defence of non est factum applies

Ratio Decidendi

The guarantee is not enforceable against Mr Yardley because he signed under undue influence and misrepresentation by Mr C. Mooney, was not given the opportunity for independent legal advice, and genuinely believed he was not signing as guarantor. The claimants had constructive knowledge of the undue influence and failed to ensure Mr Yardley was properly advised. The defence of non est factum also applies, as Mr Yardley made a fundamental mistake as to the nature of the document he was signing.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed