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.’ He defined actual undue influence as: ‘Leaving aside proof of manifest disadvantage, we think that a person relying on a plea of actual undue influence must show: (a) that the other party to the transaction (or someone who induced the transaction for his own benefit) had the capacity to influence the complainant; (b) that the influence was exercised; (c) that its exercise was undue; (d) that its exercise brought about the transaction’
Judges:
Slade LJ
Citations:
[1992] 4 All ER 955, [1989] 2 WLR 759, [1990] 1 QB 923
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Allcard v Skinner CA 1887
The donor had parted with almost all her property. She now sought to have the transaction set aside for undue influence.
Held: Where a wife has entered into a gratuitous transaction with her husband, the burden was on the husband as donee to . .
Cited by:
Cited – Dunbar Bank Plc v Nadeem and Another CA 1-Jul-1998
Manifest disadvantage had to be shown in order to establish a claim of presumed undue influence, but only damage if actual undue influence shown. Equity can only help if restitutio in integrum could be achieved. . .
Cited – Governor and Company of Bank of Scotland v Bennett and Another CA 21-Dec-1998
The bank appealed an order setting aside a deed of guarantee and mortgage and denying the possession order sought. The guarantee had been given to support borrowings of the defendant’s company. The defendant was the wife of the director and had been . .
Cited – Barclays Bank Plc v O’Brien and Another HL 21-Oct-1993
The wife joined in a charge on the family home to secure her husband’s business borrowings. The husband was found to have misrepresented to her the effect of the deed, and the bank had been aware that she might be reluctant to sign the deed.
Cited – Royal Bank of Scotland v Etridge (No 2); Barclays Bank plc v Harris; Midland Bank plc v Wallace, etc HL 11-Oct-2001
Wives had charged the family homes to secure their husband’s business borrowings, and now resisted possession orders, claiming undue influence.
Held: Undue influence is an equitable protection created to undo the effect of excess influence of . .
Disapproved – CIBC Mortgages Plc v Pitt and Another HL 21-Oct-1993
Mrs Pitt resisted an order for possession of the house saying that she had signed the mortgage only after misrepresentations by and the undue infuence of her husband who was acting as the bank’s agent.
Held: A bank was not put on enquiry as to . .
Cited – Brown v Stephenson ChD 23-Aug-2013
The claimant sought to have set aside transfers and declarations of trust made by her in the defendant’s favour, saying that they had been given under his undue influence taking advantage of her dyslexia, and by bullying.
Held: The claims of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Banking, Undue Influence
Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.180570