BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
England and Wales Land Registry Adjudicator |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Land Registry Adjudicator >> Conti v National Westminster Bank plc (Fraud, forgery, duress and undue influence : Setting aside) [2017] UKFTT 680 (PC) (15 August 2017) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWLandRA/2017/2016_0283.html Cite as: [2017] UKFTT 680 (PC) |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Giuseppe Conti v National Westminster Bank plc (Fraud, forgery, duress and undue influence : Setting aside) [2017] UKFTT 680 (PC) (15 August 2017)
Neutral Citation Number: [2017] UKFTT 680 (PC) Applicant, a businessman gave a guarantee limited to £200,000 in respect of a loan made to him which was intended to be advanced to his company. The issue was whether a legal charge he subsequently gave over his property as security for this guarantee was void or voidable. He said his signature on it was forged. Alternatively, if it was found that he had signed it, he pleaded non est factum. Permission given at hearing to treat his statement of case as an application to set aside the charge on the grounds of undue influence/misrepresentation/fraud by his son who was a fellow director and shareholder. Solicitor instructed by the bank to take the charge, and who witnessed his executing the charge, gave evidence and produced a contemporaneous attendance note demonstrating that the charge was explained to the businessman prior to his executing it. Moreover, expert witness said there was very strong evidence that the businessman had signed the charge. Held there was compelling evidence that the charge had been executed by businessman who knew what it was, the plea of non est factum failed, there was no undue influence/misrepresentation/fraud by his son, and even if there had been, the bank was never on enquiry.
A HTML version of this file is not available click here or view below the pdf version : [2017] UKFTT 680 (PC)
