The plaintiff (acting through his tutor, the Protective Commissioner) succeeded; the court declared the transfer was obtained by undue influence, set it aside, and ordered the first and second defendants to pay the plaintiff's costs. The court found that the second category of presumed undue influence applied where the donor was elderly, profoundly deaf, nearly blind, cognitively impaired, and dependent on the donee nephew who held his power of attorney, was his carer, and was the sole beneficiary under his will. The presumption was not rebutted: the donor received no independent legal advice despite the donee obtaining legal advice for himself, and the transaction was improvident as it divested the donor of virtually his only asset. The court confirmed that it is insufficient for a witness (even a justice of the peace) merely to explain the nature of a document; independent advice must address the propriety of the transaction and available alternatives. The donor having instigated the idea of the transfer was held not significant, following Stivactas v Michaletos (No 2) and Spong v Spong.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.