Undue Influence - 1985- 1989

The case shown here are derived from the lawindexpro case law database. lawindexpro is a low cost case law database, with over 260,000 case listings, and over 200,000 links to full text judgments. The free service below shows the core information on the case, but is restricted in several ways. A small proportion of cases do allow access to the full lawindexpro information. These cases are selected at random, and may be different on your next visit. The active links through to lawindexpro are extremely powerful allowing full access to all linked cases.  

This page lists 7 cases, and was prepared on 28 October 2012.

O'Sullivan -v- Management Agency and Music Limited [1985] 1 QB 428
1985 CA Dunn LJ	Contract, Undue influence, Equity	Casemap 1 Citers
	The claimant alleged undue influence. The defendant argued that the "doctrine of restitutio in integrum applied only to the rescission of contracts for misrepresentation or mistake, and did not apply to equitable relief where contracts had been entered into as the result of undue influence." Held: Dunn LJ: "If the case had to be decided according to the principles of the common law, it might have been argued that at the date when the respondent issued his writ he was not entitled to rescind the purchase, because he was not then in a position to return to the appellant in specie that which he had received under the contract, in the same plight as that in which he had received it: Clarke v. Dickson, E.B. & E. 148. But it is necessary here to apply the doctrine of equity, and equity has always regarded as valid the disaffirmance of a contract induced by fraud even though precise restitutio in integrum is not possible, if the situation is such that, by the exercise of its powers, including the power to take accounts of profits and to direct inquiries as to allowances proper to be made for deterioration, it can do what is practically just between the parties, and by so doing restore them substantially to the status quo: Erlanger v. New Sombrero Phosphate Co., 3 App.Cas. 1218, at pp.1278, 1279, Brown v. Smith (1924) 34 C.L.R. 160, 165,169; Spence v.Crawford [1939] 3 All E.R. 271, 279, 280. It is not that equity asserts a power by its decree to avoid a contract which the defrauded party himself has no right to disaffirm, and to revest property the title to which the party cannot affect. Rescission for misrepresentation is always the act of the party himself: Reese River Silver Mining Co. Ltd. (Directors of the) v. Smith (1869) L.R. 4 H.L. 64, 73. The function of a court in which proceedings for rescission are taken is to adjudicate upon the validity of a purported disaffirmance as an act avoiding the transaction ab initio, and, if it is valid, to give effect to it and make appropriate consequential orders: see Abram Steamship Co. Ltd. v. Westville Shipping Co. Ltd. [1923] A.C. 773. The difference between the legal and the equitable rules on the subject simply was that equity, having means which the common law lacked to ascertain and provide for the adjustments necessary to be made between the parties in cases where a simple handing back of property or repayment of money would not put them in as good a position as before they entered into their transaction, was able to see the possibility of restitution in integrum, and therefore to concede the right of a defrauded party to rescind, in a much wider variety of cases than those which the common law could recognise as admitting of rescission. Of course, a rescission which the common law courts would not accept as valid cannot of its own force revest the legal title to property which had passed, but if a court of equity would treat it as effectual the equitable title to such property revests upon the rescission." and "This analysis of the authorities shows that the principle of restitutio in integrum is not applied with its full rigour in equity in relation to transactions entered into by persons in breach of a fiduciary relationship, and that such transactions may be set aside even though it is impossible to place the parties precisely in the position in which they were before, provided that the court can achieve practical justice between the parties by obliging the wrongdoer to give up his profits and advantages, while at the same time compensating him for any work that he has actually performed pursuant to the transaction."

National Westminster Bank plc -v- Morgan [1985] AC 686; [1985] UKHL 2
1985 HL Lord Scarman	Undue Influence, Contract	Casemap 1 Citers
	The relationship of borrower and lender, or banker and customer, does not give rise, of itself, to any presumption of special disability on the part of the borrower or of undue influence, but exceptionally it may do. If the relationship of banker and customer becomes one in which the banker acquires a dominating influence, and a manifestly disadvantageous transaction is proved, 'there would then be room' for a court to presume that it resulted from the exercise of undue influence. 'The Court of Appeal erred in law in holding that the presumption of undue influence can arise from the evidence of the relationship of the parties without also evidence that the transaction itself was wrongful in that it constituted an advantage taken of the person subjected to the influence which, failing proof to the contrary, was explicable only on the basis that undue influence had been exercised to procure it.'
	Link[s] omitted

Avon Finance Co Ltd -v- Bridger [1985] 2 All ER 281; [1985] CLY 1289
1985 CA Brandon LJ	Banking, Undue Influence	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The son arranged finance for his parents to move near to him. He borrowed money to help finance it, secured by an expensive second loan. He deceived his parents into executing the loan. After the son defaulted, the plaintiff sought possession. Held: The parents had signed the charge without exercising reasonable care, and their plea of non est factum failed. However the charge was voidable in equity. The plaintiff lender had appointed the son to act as their agents to secure the signatures of the parents and to their disadvantage. The finance company should not be allowed to take advantage of their agent's deceit.

Coldunell Ltd -v- Gallon [1986] 1 All ER 429, CA; [1986] 2 WLR 466; [1986] QB 1184
1986 CA	Undue influence	Casemap 1 Citers
	Even in the absence of agency, if the debtor has been guilty of undue influence or misrepresentation in securing the giving of security by a third party to cover his debt to the creditor, the creditor may not be able to enforce the surety contract if the creditor had notice, actual or constructive, of the debtor's conduct.

Goldsworthy -v- Brickell [1987] Ch 378; [1987] 2 WLR 133
1987 CA Nourse LJ, Parker LJ	Equity, Undue Influence, Landlord and Tenant	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The plaintiff had granted a tenancy of his substantial farm to the first defendant, and made him a partner. The first defendant later bought out the plaintiff who was in turn later reconciled with his only son who had previously had some considerable involvement with the farm. The plaintiff gave a general power to the son who now sought to set aside the transactions as having been obtained by undue influence. Held: A presumption of undue influence could be raised where the gift was so large or improvident that it could not be accounted for from mere friendship. Equity has refused to put limits on what is to be held to be a fiduciary relationship and to which the presumption of undue influence can apply. There has to exist a degree of trust and confidence such that: (Nourse LJ) "The party in whom it is reposed, either because he is or has become an adviser of the other or because he has become entrusted with the management of his affairs or every day needs or for some other reason, is in a position to influence him into effecting the transaction of which complaint is later made." and acquiescence in its proper sense involves “a standing by so as to induce the other party to believe that the wrong is assented to.” Parker LJ “Upon whatever precise basis it is sought to uphold a transaction which was originally obtained by undue influence it is an essential ingredient that it would be inequitable to allow the influenced party to set aside the transaction.” Nourse LJ also said: "Undue influence is of two kinds: (1) express or, as it is nowadays more usually known, actual undue influence, and (2) that which in certain circumstances is presumed from a confidential relationship; by which in this context is meant a relationship wherein one party has ceded such a degree of trust and confidence as to require the other, on grounds of public policy, to show that it has not been betrayed or abused. In cases where there is no confidential relationship actual undue influence must be proved. In cases where there is such a relationship it is sometimes alleged, but need not be proved and may never have occurred. Occasionally, even where there is no direct evidence of influence, it is found that there is both a confidential relationship and actual undue influence . . " and " . . Because they have occasioned little or no debate on this appeal, three further general observations may be briefly made. First, it is not every relationship of trust and confidence to which the presumption applies. No generalisation is possible beyond the definition already attempted. Secondly, with relationships to which it does apply the presumption is not perfected and remains inoperative until the party who has ceded the trust and confidence makes a gift so large, or enters into a transaction so improvident, as not to be reasonably accounted for on the ground of friendship, relationship, charity or other ordinary motives on which ordinary men act. Although influence might have been presumed beforehand, it is only then that it is presumed to have been undue. Thirdly, in a case where the presumption has come into operation the gift or transaction will be set aside, unless it is proved to have been the spontaneous act of the donor or grantor acting in circumstances which enable him to exercise an independent will and which justify the court in holding that the gift or transaction was the result of a free exercise of his will."
	Agricultural Holdings Act 1948 8

Midland Bank Plc -v- Shephard [1988] 3 All ER 17, CA
1988 CA	Undue Influence	Casemap 1 Citers
	Setting aside of bank's charge where execution by a third party to secure the creditors debt had been secured by the creditors misrepresentation of the charge.

Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA -v- Aboody [1992] 4 All ER 955; [1989] 2 WLR 759; [1990] 1 QB 923
1989 CA Slade LJ	Banking, Undue Influence	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	In a case where the defendant said that a mortgage had been signed from undue pressure the court may find actual undue influence as opposed to presumed undue influence. Slade LJ said: "Ever since the judgments of this court in Allcard v Skinner a clear distinction has been drawn between (1) those cases in which the court will uphold a plea of undue influence only if it is satisfied that such influence has been affirmatively proved on the evidence (commonly referred to as cases of 'actual undue influence'); (2) those cases (commonly referred to as cases of 'presumed undue influence) in which the relationship between the parties will lead the court to presume that undue influence has been exerted unless evidence is adduced proving the contrary, eg by showing that the complaining party has had independent advice."