The appellant, a father, appealed the trial judge's dismissal of his mortgage action against his son and daughter-in-law.
The trial judge had found the mortgage unenforceable on three grounds: duress, sham, and failure to prove advances.
The Court of Appeal reversed on the first two grounds, finding no duress and that the mortgage was not a sham.
However, the Court upheld the trial judge's finding that the father failed to prove that funds advanced through a company were made under the mortgage, as opposed to being income to the son.
The appeal was dismissed.
