Facts
Sir John Howard-Lawson held a life interest in the Corby estate under a will. His son, Philip Howard, held the remainder in tail. In 1980 a disentailing deed preserved Sir John’s life interest and gave Philip an absolute interest in remainder. A separate deed made the same day enlarged the trustees’ powers. In 1984 father and son agreed to divide some of the assets, leaving others in trust.
Issue
Philip alleged that undue influence had led him to sign the deeds and challenged aspects of the trust administration and the sale of the estate. He also claimed the right to certain ground rents that had been omitted from the 1984 conveyance.
Law Teacher writing support
Writing a law essay?
We choose a writer who is an expert in your area of law and qualified to at least the academic level you select. Most of our writers hold a master’s degree or PhD, have teaching experience, or both.
Send us your question and, if you wish, any marking criteria. We’ll write an essay to your instructions.
Decision
The High Court rejected the undue influence claim. The evidence supported a finding that Philip had agreed to the enlarged powers, and the important powers affecting his interest required his consent. He had legal advice and later negotiated over the division of the trust assets. The court rejected his other challenges to those dealings.
The surviving Coniscliffe ground rents remained vested in Sir John on bare trust for Philip. The court rejected the allegation of fraud but directed Sir John to convey the right to those rents to Philip. The rest of the action was dismissed.
Source: Full judgment
