Hart & Anor v Burbidge & Ors

Hart & Anor v Burbidge & Ors

Susan Anne Burbidge failed to rebut the presumption of undue influence over Phyllis Hart in relation to the impugned transactions. Phyllis reposed trust and confidence in Susan, the transactions called for explanation, and there was no evidence of independent advice or the exercise of an independent will. The court found that the claimants were entitled to be compensated for the loss of testamentary gifts and the sums transferred, and Susan and Brian must restore the estate to the position it would have been in but for the undue influence.

Parties
Claimant: Kenneth Charles Hart; Claimant: Paul Roger Hart; Claimant: Arthur Kenneth Gerald Samways; Claimant: Graham Douglas Samways; Claimant: Christine Margaret Garlinge; Claimant: Peter Kenneth Hart; Claimant: Lewis Roger Hart; Claimant: Gemma Louise Hart; Defendant: Susan Anne Burbidge; Defendant: Brian Jeffery Burbidge
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim allowed
Legal Topics
Undue Influence, Ademption of Gifts, Constructive Trusts, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Restitution, Probate
Equity Succession Property Law Undue Influence Ademption of Gifts Constructive Trusts Breach of Fiduciary Duty Restitution +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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kenneth Charles Hart

Claimant

Paul Roger Hart

Claimant

Arthur Kenneth Gerald Samways

Claimant

Graham Douglas Samways

Claimant

Christine Margaret Garlinge

Claimant

Peter Kenneth Hart

Claimant

Lewis Roger Hart

Claimant

Gemma Louise Hart

Claimant

Susan Anne Burbidge

Defendant

Brian Jeffery Burbidge

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Susan Anne Burbidge exerted undue influence over Phyllis Hart in relation to the transfer of assets and sale of properties.
  2. 2 Whether the impugned transactions should be set aside or compensated for due to undue influence.
  3. 3 Whether Susan owed fiduciary or other duties as attorney under an Enduring Power of Attorney.

Ratio Decidendi

Susan Anne Burbidge failed to rebut the presumption of undue influence over Phyllis Hart in relation to the impugned transactions. Phyllis reposed trust and confidence in Susan, the transactions called for explanation, and there was no evidence of independent advice or the exercise of an independent will. The court found that the claimants were entitled to be compensated for the loss of testamentary gifts and the sums transferred, and Susan and Brian must restore the estate to the position it would have been in but for the undue influence.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed

Orders

  • Susan Anne Burbidge and Brian Jeffery Burbidge must restore to Phyllis Hart's estate the sums transferred as a result of undue influence, including £290,000 and the net proceeds of sale of Nos 7 and 43 Beacon Park Road, less the £410,000 already repaid.
  • The claimants are to be compensated for the loss of their testamentary gifts under the 2007 Will, calculated by reference to the net sale proceeds of the properties.