Key Facts
- •Jude Moses (deceased, represented by her daughter Flora) transferred land to her son Selwyn in 1984 via a deed of conveyance.
- •The land was part of Jude's residuary estate, not a bequest to Selwyn as the deed wrongly stated.
- •Selwyn sold the land in 2001 to Mr. Blaize, who developed it and resold parts to Selwyn.
- •Jude's estate claimed the 1984 deed was made by mistake and sought to set it aside.
- •The trial judge dismissed the claim, finding no evidence of mistake.
- •The Court of Appeal reversed the decision, finding the trial judge made errors in assessing the evidence and concluding there was a mistake.
- •The Court of Appeal ordered Selwyn to pay Jude's estate $620,000 for unjust enrichment.
- •Selwyn appealed to the Privy Council.
Legal Principles
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)
Outcomes
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.