Hart & Anor v Burbidge & Anor

Hart & Anor v Burbidge & Anor

The impugned transactions were procured by presumed undue influence by Mrs Burbidge over the deceased, and neither Mrs Burbidge nor Mr Burbidge rebutted the presumption. The claimants are entitled to restoration to the position they would have been in absent the undue influence. Mr Burbidge is liable in unjust enrichment. The judge's relief and costs orders were appropriate.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Kenneth Charles Hart; Claimant/respondent: Paul Roger Hart; Claimant/respondent: Arthur Kenneth Gerald Samways; Claimant/respondent: Graham Douglas Samways; Claimant/respondent: Christine Margaret Garlinge; Claimant/respondent: Peter Kenneth Hart; Claimant/respondent: Lewis Roger Hart; Claimant/respondent: Gemma Louise Hart; Defendant/appellant: Susan Anne Burbidge; Defendant/appellant: Brian Jeffery Burbidge
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Undue Influence, Unjust Enrichment, Specific Legacies, Costs, Extension of Time
Succession Equity Property Civil Procedure Undue Influence Unjust Enrichment Specific Legacies Costs +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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kenneth Charles Hart

Claimant/respondent

Paul Roger Hart

Claimant/respondent

Arthur Kenneth Gerald Samways

Claimant/respondent

Graham Douglas Samways

Claimant/respondent

Christine Margaret Garlinge

Claimant/respondent

Peter Kenneth Hart

Claimant/respondent

Lewis Roger Hart

Claimant/respondent

Gemma Louise Hart

Claimant/respondent

Susan Anne Burbidge

Defendant/appellant

Brian Jeffery Burbidge

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the impugned transactions were procured by undue influence
  2. 2 Whether Mr Burbidge was liable in unjust enrichment
  3. 3 Appropriateness of restoration orders

Ratio Decidendi

The impugned transactions were procured by presumed undue influence by Mrs Burbidge over the deceased, and neither Mrs Burbidge nor Mr Burbidge rebutted the presumption. The claimants are entitled to restoration to the position they would have been in absent the undue influence. Mr Burbidge is liable in unjust enrichment. The judge's relief and costs orders were appropriate.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Mr and Mrs Burbidge to compensate claimants for the monetary value they would have received if No 7 and No 43 had formed part of the estate and been sold after death
  • Mr and Mrs Burbidge jointly and severally liable for sums equivalent to the £290,000 gift and proceeds of No 7 and No 43, paid to the executor