Thompson v Foy [2010]

Facts

  • Mrs Thompson’s daughter, Mrs Foy, built an extension on to Mrs Thompson’s house, then agreed that her daughter would ‘buy her out’, purchasing the estate from her
  • Prior the finalisation of the agreement, Foy purported to mortgage the property to a bank, claiming that she was the owner
  • Thompson later gifted the house to Foy
  • The mortgage payments were defaulted on,and the bank sought repossession

Issue

  • Was Mrs Thompson entitled to have the gift set aside for undue influence?

Decision

  • No

Reasoning

  • Although possible, the criteria for undue influence, as set out in RBS v Etridge [2001] were not satisfied
  • Foy did have a beneficial interest in the property by virtue of proprietary estoppel
  • Actual occupation, in the establishment of a successful claim under Schedule 3, paragraph 2 of the Land Registration Act, must have present both at the time of completion and registration of a transaction
RELATED CASE  Halsall v Brizell [1957]

Posted in Land Law Revision Notes.

This page was last updated on 5th February 2015

© 2020 Webstroke Law - Terms and Privacy Policy