Charles Sinclair successfully represents lender in the face of non est factum and undue influence defences

Charles successfully represented the lender, following a 3-day trial in the County Court at Liverpool, in obtaining a possession order and money judgment.

The First Defendant (“D1”), who was legally represented at the trial, defended the claim seeking to rely upon the doctrine of non est factum, and in the alternative on grounds that his agreement to the mortgage had been procured by the undue influence of the Second Defendant (“D2” who did not defend or participate in the proceedings).

Despite the lender not being in a position to put forward a positive case as to the nature of the relationship between D1 and D2, following the cross-examination of D1 Charles was able to demonstrate to the Court’s satisfaction that the requirements of the doctrine of non est factum had not been made out, and that D1 had failed to prove undue influence (actual or presumed) in respect of the transaction. The Court was also satisfied that the lender would not in any event have been put to inquiry in respect of the transaction.

Charles was also successful in obtaining the dismissal of D1’s counterclaim to set aside the mortgage, and for damages for alleged breaches by the lender of MCOB.