Marc Beaumont has a special interest in real property law. Marc has been standing or retained counsel to several UK banks and building societies. Marc has particular experience of the law of mortgages, undue influence, consumer credit, the law relating to jointly owned property,, boundary disputes and the law of adverse possession.
In Waller-Edwards v One Savings Bank plc (2025), Marc led the team in the Supreme Court and won. This is now a leading case in the law of undue influence and constructive notice. Marc fought it in the County Court, High Court, Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, a victory for his tenacity and ingenuity.
Early in his career, Marc was junior counsel in the famous property law decision in Abbey National v Cann, arguing the case himself all the way to the House of Lords when he was still a very junior barrister.
Marc has advised or acted as counsel in several hundred cases raising issues of mortgage fraud, undue influence or mortgage enforceability.
Marc Beaumont acts on the instruction of solicitors and also has the right to conduct litigation on a direct access basis in his own right. In High Court Chancery litigation, Marc conducts cases using the much simplified e-filing procedures in the Rolls Building in London. Waller-Edwards was a direct access case until the Supreme Court.
Areas of work:-
|
|
Selected notable cases conducted in the Property field
(Successful appeal to the Supreme Court; female partner entered re-mortgage both to redeem previous borrowing itself obtained by undue influence and to pay off £39,500 of male partner’s personal debts out of an advance of £384,000. At trial, held that the presumption of undue influence arose, but the discharge of the debts of the male party did not place the Bank ‘on inquiry’ in the Royal Bank of Scotland v Etridge sense; application of principles as to constructive notice of undue influence to hybrid loans, which are partly for joint purposes and partly for a husband’s sole purposes; meaning of “surety”; meaning of “on inquiry”; need for a ‘bright line rule’ of universal application; earlier decisions of the CA, High Court and County Court overturned) watch Marc’s advocacy here For Marc Beaumont’s article, The Supreme Court Tweaks Etridge in International Banking and Financial Law (Aug-Sept 2025), click here Appeal live-streamed on You Tube (Female partner entered re-mortgage both to redeem previous borrowing itself obtained by undue influence and to pay off £39,500 of male partner’s personal debts out of an advance of £384,000. At trial, held that the presumption of undue influence arose, but the discharge of the debts of the male party did not place the Bank ‘on inquiry’ in the Royal Bank of Scotland v Etridge sense. Held on appeal, the Bank was not placed on inquiry of the risk of undue influence when £39,500 of the advance of £384,000 was for the husband’s sole purposes).
(Female partner entered re-mortgage both to redeem previous borrowing itself obtained by undue influence and to pay off £39,500 of male partner’s personal debts out of an advance of £ 384,000. At trial, held that the presumption of undue influence arose, but the discharge of the debts of the male party did not place the Bank ‘on inquiry’ in the Royal Bank of Scotland v Etridge sense. Held on appeal, the Bank was not placed on inquiry of the risk of undue influence when £39,500 of the advance of £384,000 was for the husband’s sole purposes).
(Female partner entered re-mortgage both to redeem previous borrowing itself obtained by undue influence and to pay off £39,500 of male partner’s personal debts out of an advance of £ 384,000. Held at trial, the presumption of undue influence arose, but the discharge of the debts of the male party did not place the Bank ‘on inquiry’ in the Royal Bank of Scotland v Etridge sense).
(Contested application for permission to appeal; Marc Beaumont procured refusal of permission)
(Elderly father transferred his home to his son; subsequent claim of presumed undue influence; claim successful; Marc Beaumont exercised his conduct of litigation rights and conducted the case from start to finish, exercising all the functions of barrister and solicitor)
(Defence of undue influence with third party claim for negligence against a firm of solicitors; successful London Mediation at which wife of debtor received enough in damages to secure re-housing).
(Security for costs; whether Claimant Company in substance a Defendant and so immune from SFC order).
(Application to strike out averment of constructive notice in Etridge defence; application successfully opposed by Marc Beaumont)
(Re-litigation, consumer credit, improper execution, issue estoppel, abuse of process, Johnson v Gore-Wood, limitation period for allegations of improper execution, successful strike-out application).
(conveyancing; purchaser paid too little to vendor as vendor’s solicitor mistakenly asked for too little to effect completion, mistakenly accepted the lower sum and mistakenly paid the correct, larger sum to the vendor out of other client funds; vendor sued in damages for balance of purchase price, but had already received it, by mistake, from his negligent solicitor; defence of “no loss;” vendor then repaid the overpayment to his negligent solicitor having retained it for 5 months in order to contrive a loss; whether vendor could recover that loss ?)
(Gift of land; presumption of undue influence; whether rebutted by donor’s confession that not placed under any pressure; whether third party transferee of land had constructive notice.)
(Probate action, application of CPR to modification of undertaking; relevant test)
(Probate action; strike out for breach of undertaking, abuse of process, extension of time)
(CPR Part 51.19, automatic stay, strike out)
(Planning, breach of Enforcement Notice, autrefois acquit inapplicable where previous acquittal secured by improperly obtained certificate of lawful development)
(Planning; slander by officer of Local Government, exemplary and aggravated damages, whether slander of Company Director is slander of the Company )
(Overreaching, ECHR Article 8, undue influence, subrogation)
(strike out/limitation period for extortionate credit bargain claim)
(following FNB v Ann and Hustanger Ltd v Ricketts, strike out/limitation period for extortionate credit bargain claim)
(mortgage fraud, LPA Section 199, reasonable inquiries, application of Quennell v Maltby test)
(Unless Orders / Hytec Information criteria)
(following FNB v Ann, strike out/limitation period for extortionate credit bargain claim/issue estoppel/abuse of process)
(limitation period for extortionate credit bargain claim)
(a leading case on overriding interests, LRA 1925 s. 70(1)(g); equitable subordination)
(a leading case on overriding interests, LRA 1925 s. 70(1)(g); equitable subordination)
|
|