Sollis v Leyshon & Anor

Sollis v Leyshon & Anor

The court found that Mrs Sollis was subject to undue influence by her daughter, Mrs Leyshon, at the time of the transfer of her property. The evidence established that Mrs Leyshon exercised significant control over Mrs Sollis, who was vulnerable due to ill health, confusion, and dependency. The transfer of the property called for explanation and was not justified by the evidence. The legal advice given did not provide sufficient space or independence for Mrs Sollis to make a free and informed decision. The misappropriated funds were also established on the balance of probabilities, subject to a margin of error due to confusion and lack of records.

Parties
Claimant: Jeanette Sollis; Defendant: Rebecca Naomi Leyshon; Defendant: Stephen Ian Leyshon
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim allowed; counterclaim dismissed
Legal Topics
Undue Influence, Tracing, Constructive Trust, Misappropriation, Counterclaim, Relief, Wills and Succession
Equity Property Law Civil Procedure Undue Influence Tracing Constructive Trust Misappropriation Counterclaim +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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jeanette Sollis

Claimant

Rebecca Naomi Leyshon

Defendant

Stephen Ian Leyshon

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mrs Sollis' daughter and son-in-law misappropriated funds from her bank accounts
  2. 2 Whether the transfer of Mrs Sollis' property to the defendants was procured by undue influence
  3. 3 Whether the proceeds of sale of the property can be traced into a subsequent property

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Mrs Sollis was subject to undue influence by her daughter, Mrs Leyshon, at the time of the transfer of her property. The evidence established that Mrs Leyshon exercised significant control over Mrs Sollis, who was vulnerable due to ill health, confusion, and dependency. The transfer of the property called for explanation and was not justified by the evidence. The legal advice given did not provide sufficient space or independence for Mrs Sollis to make a free and informed decision. The misappropriated funds were also established on the balance of probabilities, subject to a margin of error due to confusion and lack of records.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; counterclaim dismissed

Orders

  • Defendants to pay £36,500 to Mrs Sollis for misappropriated funds
  • Transfer of No 24 set aside for undue influence; tracing remedy into No 7 property granted