The High Court of Northern Ireland has ordered a woman to repay £34,145.30 to a man who dishonestly misrepresented a property sale as a loan, while refusing to award him interest on the basis that he should not benefit from his misconduct.
Delivering judgment, Mr Gerald Simpson KC determined the appropriate monetary relief following an earlier order granting equitable rescission of a 2015 transfer of 19 acres of land in Ballymena, County Antrim. The Chancery Court had previously found that the first defendant falsely represented the transaction as a loan when, in fact, the documentation effected a sale at a significant undervalue. The plaintiff, who was vulnerable due to ill health and financial pressure, had received no legal advice and limited opportunity to review the documents.
The court found that the first defendant had paid £61,645.30 to or on behalf of the plaintiff, including sums paid to HMRC and cheques issued to the plaintiff and a second defendant. His assertion that a further balance had been discharged by permitting rent free grazing was rejected at trial. The transaction was set aside and the matter was remitted following an appeal to determine the financial consequences of rescission.
In assessing reinstatement works claimed by the plaintiff, the court considered a surveyor’s report seeking £58,159.20 for works including removal of laneways and structures, reinstatement of utilities and restoration of boundaries and facilities. Mr Simpson KC described the report as lacking adequate explanation and supporting material, emphasising that expert evidence is a tool to assist the court and may be rejected in whole or in part where insufficiently reasoned. He allowed a rounded figure of £27,000 for reinstatement.
The court held that the starting point was repayment of the £61,645.30 advanced. After deducting £27,000 for reinstatement works, the balance payable was £34,645.30, subsequently calculated at £34,145.30. In exercising his discretion, Mr Simpson KC refused to award interest. He stated that it would offend the conscience of the court to permit the defendant to derive a financial benefit from a dishonest enterprise deliberately directed at a vulnerable woman.
Accordingly, the plaintiff was directed to pay £34,145.30 to the first defendant, with no order for interest.