Shaw v Finnimore & Anor, Court of Appeal - Chancery Division, March 02, 2009, [2009] EWHC 367 (Ch)
Linked as:
Extract
Shaw v Finnimore & Anor, Court of Appeal - Chancery Division, March 02, 2009, [2009] EWHC 367 (Ch)
Neutral Citation Number: [2009] EWHC 367 (Ch)
Case No: HC08C00296IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICECHANCERY DIVISIONRoyal Courts of JusticeStrand, London, WC2A 2LLDate: 2nd March 2009Before :SIR JOHN LINDSAY(SITTING AS A JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Between :- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Mr Jeremy Callman (instructed by Wiseman Lee LLP) for the ClaimantMr Simon Lillington (instructed by Garner & Hancock LLP) for the DefendantsHearing dates: 10th, 11th, 12th 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th & 19th December 2008 and 15th & 21stJanuary and 9th, 10th & 11th February 2009- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -JudgmentSir John LINDSAY : A. Introduction1. In this action Mr Royston Henry Shaw, known to many as Roy ``Pretty Boy'' Shaw, claims that, by way of the provisions, sometimes of law, sometimes of equity, the defendants are liable to pay or repay large sums to him. The defendants are, firstly, Miss Linda Sheila Finnimore, an erstwhile close friend and associate of Mr Shaw, and, secondly, her son, Mo Frederick Watts. Mr Watts has taken no active part in the action and is content to abide by my judgment. Miss Finnimore, by contrast, has very actively resisted Mr Shaw's claims for recovery, which are put several ways, including recovery for misappropriation, deceit, misrepresentation, for mistake of fact, for money had and received and in respect of undue influence and unconscionable bargain.2. Outstandingly the largest single sum claimed by Mr Shaw is one of £643,000 paid on 30th October 2007 by a bank transfer, signed by him, from his bank account at HSBC's Brentwood branch to Miss Finnimore's account 00011711 at HBOS. £100,000 of the £643,000 were promptly transferred on by Miss Finnimore to her son and it is accepted that the 2nd Defendant's case stands or falls with Miss Finnimore's case as to the £643,000. Mr Lillington, counsel for Miss Finnimore, rightly describes as the single most important issue that of why it was that the £643,000 found its way from Mr Shaw's account to Miss Finnimore's at the end of October 2007. I shall later deal with that issue ahead of all others but I should first say a little as to the procedural history and rather more as to the parties. B. Procedural history3. On 29th January 2008 Mr Shaw moved ex parte and obtained from Evans-Lombe J a freezing order over, inter alia, Miss Finnimore's Halifax account 00011711. Also ``frozen'' was a house in Miss Finnimore's name (but subject to a substantial mortgage) at Newton Abbot in Devon. The order made provision by way of exception from the freezing order for £500 per week for Miss Finnimore's living expenses and for reasonable sums for her legal expenses. After evidence or further evidence was filed by both sides, on 4th March 2008 David Richards J continued the Order of 29th January until final judgment or earlier further order. On 27th June 2008 the exceptions to the freezing order were enlarged by order of Patten J so as to permit the payment from the frozen account of £13,478.62 of Miss Finnimore's then mortgage arrears on her Newton Abbot home and of monthly mortgage payments thereafter of £1,514.94 until the conclusion of the trial. Before the freezing order took effect Miss Finnimore had already substantially reduced the £643,000 that had passed into her Halifax account and the exceptions to the freezer which I have described, with other agreed exceptions, have led, I am told, to over £200,000 having been allowed out of the frozen account in favour of Miss Finnimore's living, mortgage or legal expenses. At the conclusion of the hearing of the action on 11th February I put an immediate end to the exceptions to the freezing order. However, given that Miss Finnimore's evidence was that her only present resources are the Newton Abbot house and (on the assumption that it is hers) the balance for the time being remaining in the frozen account, one can see why Mr Lillington described the single most important issue in the action as he did. Before I turn to it, though, I must, as I have said, say something of the main parties, Roy Shaw and Linda Finnimore, and the relationship or connection between them.The principal parties: Mr Shaw4. Mr Shaw was born on 11th March 1936 and accordingly is very nearly 73 years of age (although Miss Finnimore repeatedly referred to him as being 77). He has a history of criminal violence and dishonesty and by 1974 had spent some 18 years in prison, some of that period having been spent in Broadmoor. I do not understand him...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
