Rita Rea v Remo Rea & Ors
[2024] EWCA Civ 169
Charan-Jyothi Ramamurthie Naidoo v David Barton & Anor
8 March 2023
[2023] EWHC 500 (Ch)
High Court
A son tried to take over his parents' assets using unfair tricks and bad deals. The court decided the deals were unfair and gave the assets to the other family members instead because the son's actions were dishonest.
Key Facts
- •Nirmalathevie Naidoo (Mrs. Naidoo) died on 10 February 2016 leaving a will dated 21 July 2015 naming her son Charan as sole executor and beneficiary.
- •Her son, David Barton (Mr. Barton), the first defendant, is contesting the will and various transactions made during her and her late husband's lifetime.
- •The case involves claims of undue influence, mutual wills, fraudulent misrepresentation, mistake, and laches.
- •Key transactions in dispute include the transfer of shares in Choiceclassic Ltd, a 2000 agreement, and three insurance policy settlements (Policy Trusts).
- •Mr. Barton has criminal convictions for dishonesty and fraud, which are considered relevant to his credibility and the case's facts.
Legal Principles
Undue influence
Royal Bank of Scotland Plc v Etridge (No.2) [2002] 2 AC 773
Fraudulent misrepresentation
Chitty on Contracts, 34th ed., 9-006 to 9-052
Common mistake
Chitty on Contracts, 34th ed., 8-002
Mutual wills
Theobald on Wills, 19th ed., 1-019; re Cleaver [1981] 1 WLR 939; re Dale [1994] Ch 31; re Goodchild [1997] 1WLR 1216; Re Hey, Walker v Gaskill [1914] P. 192; Thomas and Agnes Carvel Foundation v Carvel [2007] EWHC 1314 (Ch)
Laches
Snell’s Equity, 34th ed., 5-011; Hatch v Hatch (1804) 9 Ves 292
Admissibility of criminal convictions in civil proceedings
Section 11 of the Civil Evidence Act 1968; Walsh v Greystone Financial Services Ltd [2019] EWHC 1719 (Ch); NT1 v Google LLC [2018] EWHC 799 (QB); Hourani v Thomson [2017] EWHC 432 (QB)
Outcomes
Mutual wills agreement set aside due to undue influence.
The court found a profound relationship of trust and dependency between Mrs. Naidoo and Mr. Barton, and the mutual wills agreement was not satisfactorily explained except as the result of Mr. Barton's undue influence.
2015 Will declared valid; Charan is the beneficiary.
The mutual wills agreement was set aside, leaving the 2015 will, naming Charan as sole beneficiary, as the valid will.
Choiceclassic share transfers claim dismissed.
The court found insufficient evidence of undue influence regarding the share transfers; instead, there was consideration involving the discharge of debts.
2000 Agreement and Policy Trusts set aside due to undue influence.
The court found that independent legal advice provided by Cobbetts did not sufficiently overcome Mr. Barton's undue influence and the transactions were unfair to Mrs. Naidoo.
Further submissions needed on practical aspects of rescission.
Practical matters regarding the rescission of the 2000 Agreement and Policy Trusts require further consideration.
Defence of laches rejected.
The court found that Mrs. Naidoo's delay in challenging the transactions was due to her vulnerability and fear of Mr. Barton.