Written by Godwin Tan

For the Cambridge University Law Society

Please seek permission before using: godwin.tan@cantab.net

IN THE SUPREME COURT Claim no. 2018

ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL

BETWEEN:
JESS CROMBIE (Appellant)

-and-

JAMES DAVIES (Respondent)

Jess was a policewoman who lived in London with her fiancé, James, a business graduate with more than 30
years of experience in retail business. In 2015, Jess suffered a stroke and had to permanently leave the police
force. After losing her career, Jess mainly stayed at home and started to become anxious and moody. She was
unable to concentrate well for an extended period of time, and her eyesight deteriorated significantly. As a result,
she depended on James for a great deal of assistance on her daily needs, paperwork and financial affairs.

In January 2017, James wanted to start his own company, ‘Green Sols 33’. Green Sols 33 will focus on harnessing
solar energy and other renewable resources. James believed that the company has significant potential to fill an
existing gap in the renewable energy sector, but he also heard that other similar companies might soon be formed.
Therefore, James believed that he had to act quickly. Such companies require significant capital upfront. James
did not have such money and sought to obtain the required money from Jess, who came from a rich family and
recently received significant inheritance from her late parents.

Desperate to get the money, James told Jess, “It is my dream to run such a meaningful business. I am sure that
the business will be profitable within six months. If you love me, you will support me.” James knew, however,
that Green Sols 33 will require at least three years to be profitable. Jess has no expertise or experience in business
management and was exceedingly anxious about James’ business proposal. She protested at the time, but James
had a forceful personality and was insistent.

In February 2017, Jess relented and called her bank account manager to transfer £2,000,000 to James’ account
(‘First Transfer’) in exchange for nominal shares in Green Sols 33.

James started running his business with the money, and the engaged couple got married. However, Green Sols
33 did not do well and, after six months, it suffered a significant loss. James told Jess, “We are now married. You
must support me no matter what happens. If I do not get additional funds to keep the business going, I will end
the business. You will not get any money in the end.” James knew that Green Sols 33 was very likely to fail even
with the additional funds.
 Written by Godwin Tan
For the Cambridge University Law Society
Please seek permission before using: godwin.tan@cantab.net

Jess protested again but, fearing that James might leave her, she decided to send an addition £1,000,000 to James
(‘Second Transfer’) in exchange for more nominal shares in Green Sols 33.

In January 2018, the relationship between James and Jess became too strained. Following a failed mediation, Jess
sued James for the repayment of £3,000,000, arguing that there was duress and undue influence.

The court held at first instance:

1. There was duress for both transfers.
a. The elements of duress are satisfied on the facts: DSND Subsea Ltd v Petroleum Geo Services
AS [2000] 7 WLUK 875, [2000] BLR 530.
b. It is irrelevant that James was acting lawfully: Times Travel (UK) Ltd v Pakistan International
Airlines Corp [2017] EWHC 1367 (Ch), [2017] 6 WLUK 255.
2. There was also undue influence.
a. When the First Transfer occurred, the couple was engaged. The relationship between a fiancé
and fiancée is a ‘Class 2A’ special relationship: Leeder v Stevens [2005] EWCA Civ 50, (2005)
149 SJLB 112. The requirements of ‘Class 2A’ undue influence are met on the facts.
b. When the Second Transfer occurred, the couple was married. The relationship between a
husband and wife does not fall within the ‘Class 2A’ list: Royal Bank of Scotland v Etridge (No
2) [2001] UKHL 44, [2002] 2 AC 773. However, there was ‘Class 2B’ undue influence.
3. Therefore, Jess can recover the full £3,000,000.

James appealed, and the Court of Appeal held:

1. There was no duress.
a. The elements of duress are not met on the facts.
b. At all times, James acted lawfully, and there was no illegitimate pressure. Times Travel should
either be narrowly construed or overturned.
2. There was also no undue influence.
a. Leeder v Stevens was wrongly decided. The relationship between a fiancé and fiancée is not, or
should not be, a ‘Class 2A’ special relationship.
b. Furthermore, the requirements of ‘Class 2B’ undue influence are not met for both transfers:
Gorjat v Gorjat [2010] EWHC 1537 (Ch), 13 ITELR 312.
3. Therefore, Jess cannot recover anything.

Jess now appeals to the Supreme Court on two grounds:

1. First Ground (Senior Counsel): Jess should recover the full £3,000,000 as there was duress.
2. Second Ground of Appeal (Junior Counsel): Jess should recover the full £3,000,000 as there was
undue influence.