Howard v Howard - Lawson (Rev 1)

Undue influence requires proof that influence invaded the claimant’s free volition. Independent specialist advice, informed participation and the absence of contemporary evidence of compulsion may defeat the allegation. A claim challenging a transaction may also be barred by laches where substantial delay has occurred and circumstances have materially changed.

Property not forming part of a settlement cannot pass under a contractual catch-all provision applying to unspecified settlement assets. Conversely, an asset comprised in the settlement and omitted from a partition schedule may remain held for the beneficiary absolutely. A trustee or life tenant has no duty to jeopardise trust or personal assets to secure a beneficiary’s personal borrowing.

The claimant, Philip William Howard, brought proceedings against his father, Sir John Howard-Lawson, concerning trusts created by the will of their ancestor. He alleged undue influence in relation to the 1980 Disentailing Deed and Powers Deed, an inequitable 1984 Partition, breaches of trust involving trust assets, concealment of assets, and failures concerning later sales and transactions.

The action followed extensive earlier disputes, the claimant’s bankruptcy, assignments by his trustee in bankruptcy, and the ending or disposal of relevant trust interests. The central issues were whether the challenged transactions were procured by undue influence or fraud, whether particular assets formed part of the settlement, whether claims were statute-barred or defeated by laches, and what relief remained available.

1. Undue influence. The relevant question was whether persuasion or advice invaded the claimant’s free volition, applying Daniel v Drew [2005] EWCA Civ 507. The claimant had received skilled and independent advice from specialist counsel and solicitors. The documents and subsequent conduct did not show compulsion. The claims concerning the 1980 deeds and 1984 Partition therefore failed. They were also defeated by delay and laches, particularly because the indemnity had been relied upon, witnesses had died and the settlement had ended.
2. The 1980 disentail did not cause the land to cease to be settled land. Sir John remained tenant for life and the property continued to fall within the Settled Land Act 1925. Re Alefounder [1927] 1 Ch 360 was distinguishable on its facts.
3. The National Mutual and Hill Samuel policies were held under separate deeds of trust and were not assets of the Will settlement. They therefore did not pass to the claimant under the Partition’s catch-all provision. The claims concerning the chattels, pictures, statue, manorial rights and fixtures and fittings also failed on the evidence, standing, limitation or laches.
4. The Coniscliffe chief rents were settlement assets omitted from the Partition schedules. They were consequently held by Sir John on a bare trust for the claimant absolutely. Sir John was ordered to convey any subsisting chief rents to the claimant, without consequential account or inquiry.
5. Sir John owed no fiduciary or other legal duty to charge trust assets, or jeopardise his own interest, to secure the claimant’s personal borrowing and proposed IVA. That claim was dismissed. The remaining claims were dismissed, with the costs of the conveyance borne by Sir John, subject to any disputed form being settled by Conveyancing Counsel with costs divided equally.