Site icon swarb.co.uk

Zamet v Hyman: CA 1961

In considering a claim of undue influence the court referred to relationships where one party owed the other an obligation of candour and protection. A presumption of undue influence arose only where it is proved that the gift was made by the donor ‘only after full, free and informed thought about it.’
Lord Evershed MR
[1961] 1 WLR 1442
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedRoyal 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 . .
CitedRandall v Randall ChD 30-Jul-2004
The executor sought to set aside gifts made by the deceased, an elderly aunt before her death to his brother, alleging undue influence.
Held: The recipient had acted falsely in failing to declare overpayments of benefits. The deceased had been . .
CitedHammond v Osborn and Another CA 27-Jun-2002
Where there was any relationship of trust and confidence between parties, and a substantial gift was made by the one in whom that trust was placed, there would be a presumption of undue influence. Undue influence is a matter of public policy. In a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 22 October 2021; Ref: scu.224815 br>

Exit mobile version