Charles Edward Porter and another v Robert Stokes (Personal Representative of the Estate of Walter Edward Stokes, deceased) (Trinidad and Tobago)
[2023] UKPC 11
An appellate court will be very slow to reverse a trial judge's finding of fact and will only do so if the judge was 'plainly wrong'. However, when the issue concerns an inference from undisputed primary facts, the appellate court may be better placed to make its own assessment.
Beacon Insurance Co Ltd v Maharaj Bookstore Ltd [2014] UKPC 21
A mistake must be sufficiently serious to warrant setting aside a deed in equity. Relief may be granted if rescission is barred due to third-party rights.
Ogilvie v Littleboy (1897) 13 TLR 399, CA; Pitt v Holt [2013] UKSC 26
In a claim for unjust enrichment, the claimant must show enrichment of the defendant at the claimant's expense and that the enrichment was unjust. Defences are available to the defendant.
Samsoondar v Capital Insurance Company Ltd [2020] UKPC 33
The Administration of Estates Act, Chapter 9:01, section 12(1), governs how personal representatives transfer property to beneficiaries.
Administration of Estates Act, Chapter 9:01, section 12(1)
The Privy Council allowed the appeal in part.
The Privy Council found the Court of Appeal correctly overturned the trial judge's finding, as he erred in his assessment of evidence regarding mistake. However, they disagreed with the Court of Appeal's calculation of unjust enrichment.
The 1984 deed was set aside due to mistake.
The Privy Council agreed with the Court of Appeal that Jude acted under a mistake, believing Selwyn was entitled to the land under the will. Several pieces of evidence pointed to this conclusion.
Selwyn was ordered to pay Jude's estate $300,000.
This amount reflects Selwyn's unjust enrichment from the initial sale of the land, not including subsequent profits from reselling developed portions.
[2023] UKPC 11
[2024] UKPC 22
[2024] UKPC 18
[2023] UKPC 3
[2024] UKPC 38