McKee v Carson & Anor [2022] NICh 9 (10 June 2022)

McKee v Carson & Anor [2022] NICh 9 (10 June 2022)

The court found that Mr Carson made a false representation to Mrs McKee that the monies were advanced as a loan, knowing this was untrue, and intended her to rely on it. The plaintiff acted in reliance, suffered loss by transferring land at a significant undervalue, and lacked legal advice and time to comprehend the documents. The ground of misrepresentation was established, making it unnecessary to consider other grounds. Equitable rescission was appropriate to restore the parties to their pre-contractual positions.

Citation
[2022] NICh 9
Parties
Plaintiff: Fiona Mary McKee; First Named Defendant: Samuel Forbes Carson; Second Named Defendant: Samuel James McKee
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
10 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Chancery (property/equity) / Judgment After Contested Hearing
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim for rescission of the land transfer succeeds on the ground of misrepresentation; further submissions invited on remedy.
Legal Topics
Misrepresentation, Non Est Factum, Undue Influence, Unconscionable Bargain, Rescission, Land Transfer
Property Law Equity Contract Law Misrepresentation Non Est Factum Undue Influence Unconscionable Bargain Rescission +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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fiona Mary McKee

Plaintiff

Samuel Forbes Carson

First Named Defendant

Samuel James McKee

Second Named Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Chancery (property/equity) / Judgment After Contested Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the transfer of land was procured by misrepresentation, undue influence, non est factum, or unconscionable bargain; whether the plaintiff had independent legal advice; whether the transaction was at an undervalue; whether the plaintiff was a vulnerable person at the time of the transaction.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Mr Carson made a false representation to Mrs McKee that the monies were advanced as a loan, knowing this was untrue, and intended her to rely on it. The plaintiff acted in reliance, suffered loss by transferring land at a significant undervalue, and lacked legal advice and time to comprehend the documents. The ground of misrepresentation was established, making it unnecessary to consider other grounds. Equitable rescission was appropriate to restore the parties to their pre-contractual positions.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim for rescission of the land transfer succeeds on the ground of misrepresentation; further submissions invited on remedy.

Orders

  • Equitable rescission of the Deed of Conveyance and related transfers and registrations indicated, subject to further submissions on remedy.
  • Second-named defendant (Mr McKee) to remain a party for purposes of accounting and relief.