Undue influence and the family home

This book provides a comprehensive analysis of the doctrine of undue influence in the context of the family home and fully incorporates the recent House of Lords ruling in Royal Bank of Scotland v Etridge (No 2) (2001). It is aimed predominantly at the legal practitioner, but will also act as a useful source of reference for academics and students of contract, land law and equity and trusts. Emphasis is placed on claims brought by spouses (usually the wife) seeking to set aside a charge over the matrimonial home made in favour of a lending institution. The role of lenders in this context is also examined in depth, as is the part played by the solicitor acting on behalf of the parties. Apart from providing an exposition of the doctrine and its key elements, the book also gives a broader outlook by examining the Commonwealth experience (notably in Australia, Canada and New Zealand) and suggesting an underlying concept of unconscionability as governing undue influence claims. There is also a separate chapter on remedies, as well as an appendix containing a number of draft pleadings for use by the legal practitioner. In the foreword, the Honourable Mr Justice Neuberger writes: 'Pawlowski and Brown are to be congratulated for having produced a book ...as comprehensive and user-friendly as this volume. Not only have they considered the effect of the authorities in a clear and logical way, but they have also highlighted problems which have yet to be resolved and questions which have yet to be answered ...one of the hallmarks of a good legal book.'

Case Comment : Challenging the validity of leasehold guarantees:undue influence, non-est factum and formality issues

Case: Beardsley Theobalds Retirement Benefit Scheme Trustees v Yardley [2011] EWHC 1380 (QB) (QBD). The recent case of Beardsley Theobalds Retirement Benefit Scheme Trustees v Yardley, nicely illustrates, inter alia, the impact of the contractual defences of undue influence and the plea of non est factum in the context of avoiding liability under leasehold guarantees, within the setting of the landlord and tenant relationship. Additionally, the case also gives us an insight into the possible application of other technical defences relating to the law of formalities for leases. Judgment in this case was handed down on September 30, 2011.

Interpreting "D.I.Y." documents:severance, release, trusts, certainty, vesting and undue influence

Comments on the Chancery Division decision in Wallbank v Price on whether a home-made ("DIY") document signed by a wife and purporting to revoke her rights as a beneficial joint tenant in the matrimonial home, which was acquired under the right-to-buy scheme, should be set aside for duress or undue influence. Details the court's analysis of the principles supporting a successful claim of undue influence, the nature of the DIY document, its meaning and its effect. Considers possible reasons for the parties' use of the document. Cases Wallbank v Price (2007) EWHC 3001 (Ch); (2008) 2 FLR 501 (Ch D (Birmingham)) : Royal Bank of Scotland Plc v Etridge (No.2) (2001) UKHL 44; (2002) 2 AC 773 (HL) : Paul v Constance (1977) 1 WLR 527 (CA (Civ Div)) Statutes Housing Act 1985