De La Sala v Copinger-Symes & ors [2026] EWCA Civ 282
On 17 March 2026 the Court of Appeal (Moylan, Andrews and Nugee LJJ) handed down an interesting judgment dismissing the appeals in Perez de la Sala v Copinger-Symes & Ors [2026] EWCA Civ 282.
The intervenor (the wife’s mother) sought recovery of outright gifts totalling over US$34 million made to the husband. She advanced two equitable claims: first, failure of basis on the footing that the gifts were subject to an implied condition that the wife should derive no benefit from them; second, that the gifts should be set aside for mistake under the principles restated in Pitt v Holt [2013] 2 AC 108.
Lord Justice Nugee (with whom Moylan and Andrews LJJ agreed) upheld the first-instance finding that the gifts were unconditional and outright. It was “entirely clear” that once transferred the funds belonged to the husband to deal with as he wished. Any implied condition failed the officious-bystander test and was inconsistent with the donor’s own evidence. On the mistake claim, any mistaken belief that the wife could not benefit was not causative of the decision to make the gifts and it was not unconscionable for the husband to retain them.
Lady Justice Andrews added that the maxim “fraud unravels all” applies as readily to family-proceedings bargains induced by deliberate withholding of material facts as to any other contract.
The decision provides important guidance on the high threshold for equitable relief in voluntary family wealth transfers and the limits of Pitt v Holt in the matrimonial context.
Edward Cumming KC, together with Justin Warshaw KC, with Joshua Viney, instructed by Clarence Family Law for the wife, successfully resisted both the intervenor’s appeal in respect of her equitable claims and the husband’s parallel appeal concerning material non-disclosure.
