Mumby v Hardingham [2002] EWCA Civ 624 (15 April 2002)

Mumby v Hardingham [2002] EWCA Civ 624 (15 April 2002)

The judge at first instance made clear findings of fact that Mrs Hardingham was not subject to undue influence and understood the nature of the agreements; the conduct of the hearing was fair, and the withdrawal of public funding did not render it unfair. There is no realistic prospect of success on appeal against these findings.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 624
Parties
Claimant: Graham Mumby; Defendant/applicant: Mrs C. Hardingham
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 April 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
application for permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Undue Influence, Loan Agreements, Fair Hearing, Litigant in Person, Public Funding Withdrawal
Contract Law Family Law Civil Procedure Undue Influence Loan Agreements Fair Hearing Litigant in Person Public Funding Withdrawal

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Graham Mumby

Claimant

Mrs C. Hardingham

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mrs Hardingham's signature on loan agreements was obtained by undue influence
  2. 2 Whether the hearing was unfair due to withdrawal of public funding and lack of representation

Ratio Decidendi

The judge at first instance made clear findings of fact that Mrs Hardingham was not subject to undue influence and understood the nature of the agreements; the conduct of the hearing was fair, and the withdrawal of public funding did not render it unfair. There is no realistic prospect of success on appeal against these findings.

Court Disposition

application for permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • application dismissed