Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Undue Influence - From: 1985 To: 1989

This page lists 7 cases, and was prepared on 21 May 2019.


 
 O'Sullivan v Management Agency and Music Limited; CA 1985 - [1985] QB 428; (1984) 2 IPR 499; [1984] 3 WLR 448; [1985] 3 All ER 351
 
Avon Finance Co Ltd v Bridger [1985] 2 All ER 281; [1985] CLY 1289
1985
CA
Brandon LJ
Banking, Undue Influence, Equity
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.
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 National Westminster Bank plc v Morgan; HL 7-Mar-1985 - [1985] AC 686; [1985] UKHL 2; [1985] 1 All ER 821; [1985] ANZ Conv R 251; [1985] 2 WLR 588
 
Coldunell Ltd v Gallon [1986] 1 All ER 429, CA; [1986] 2 WLR 466; [1986] QB 1184
1986
CA

Undue influence
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.
1 Citers


 
Goldsworthy v Brickell [1987] Ch 378; [1987] 2 WLR 133
1987
CA
Nourse LJ, Parker LJ
Equity, Undue Influence, Landlord and Tenant
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 said: “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
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Midland Bank Plc v Shephard; CA 1988 - [1988] 3 All ER 17, CA

 
 Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA v Aboody; CA 1989 - [1992] 4 All ER 955; [1989] 2 WLR 759; [1990] 1 QB 923
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.