Chapter 6: Undue Influence Flashcards
Undue Influence
Contractual obligations should be both freely and independently assumed. If the consent to a
transaction was produced in a way such that the consent ought not fairly to be treated as the
expression of a person’s free will, then the transaction will not be allowed to stand. The objective is
to ensure that the influence of one person over another is not abused,
Overlap with Duress
This concept overlaps with that of duress. Ideally, the doctrines of duress and undue influence
would have clear and distinct targets. However, the doctrine of duress is a common law doctrine,
whereas undue influence was developed by the courts of equity. The two have not always
developed with a clear view as to the role of the other. Where a contract appears to be the result
of pressure/coercion, you should consider each doctrine in turn
RBS v Etridge (No 2) [2002] 2 AC 773
The leading case on undue influence is RBS v Etridge (No 2) [2002] 2 AC 773. In this case the court stated that undue influence exists where ‘a person’s consent to a transaction was produced in a
way such that the consent ought not fairly to be treated as the expression of their free will’. The
court stated that it was ‘impossible to be more precise or definitive’.
Keeping Open Options for duress
The definition of undue influence provided in Etridge suggests the court wants to keep its options
open to find undue influence in any situation which falls within this test. Notwithstanding this, the
court detailed the circumstances in which undue influence has already been established. Etridge
clarified much of the case law in this area.
Types of Undue Influence
First, there are instances of overt acts of improper pressure or coercion such as unlawful threats.
This type has much overlap with the idea of duress.
Second, there are situations where one party has influence or ascendancy over the other, and the
first party takes advantage of that influence/ascendancy. In these cases there may be no specific
or overt act of pressure or coercion, but the underlying relationship is sufficient for the undue influence to be exercised. The lack of an act of pressure or coercion makes this quite distinct from duress.
1.1 Overt acts of improper pressure or coercion has to be deceitful and/or fradulent
Application of the ‘But For’ Test
In so far as the behaviour constituting undue influence is of a deceitful/fraudulent nature, the
causation test is the same as for duress to the person. It is necessary only for the innocent party to establish that the undue influence is a factor in inducing the claimant to enter into the contract.
1.2 Taking advantage of influence or ascendancy in a relationship
A common situation is where a husband or wife (the ‘business owner’) wants their spouse to enter
into an agreement with the effect that the spouse’s share in the matrimonial home is used as
security for a loan to the business owner’s business. The effect is that the spouse might lose their
interest in the home. If the spouse has placed trust and confidence in the business owner and the
business owner abuses this trust in seeking the spouse’s consent to the transaction (for example,
by misrepresenting the nature of the transaction), then this can amount to undue influence. Note
the absence of a specific act of coercion or pressure
Influence or Ascendancy Sources
Commonly, the influence will
come from the trust and confidence which one party has in the other. However, a relationship
where one party is very vulnerable or dependent might also allow the other party to have significant influence, even if the innocent party has not positively placed trust or confidence in the other party
Irrebuttable Presumption
Such relationships include those between parent and child, guardian and ward, trustee and beneficiary, solicitor and client and doctor and patient. However, parent and adult child, or (crucially) spouses do not give rise to this presumption
1.2.1 Proof of taking advantage of influence or ascendancy in a relationship
If a party wishes to allege it has been the victim of undue influence, it must prove this. If a party can show that there is a relationship of trust and confidence (or presumably one of the
categories of irrebuttable presumption) and also a ‘transaction which requires explanation’, then this will be enough for the court to determine that the transaction is the product of undue influence, unless the alleged wrongdoer can produce evidence to convince the court that there was no such undue influence
Transaction explanation
A transaction will require an explanation if it does not fit with what would usually be expected in the relationship concerned. It might be a suspicious type of transaction, or be for a suspiciously high
value.
Husband/Wife Transactions
Note that the court has indicated that, in the majority of cases, a husband/wife offering their
interest in the matrimonial home as security for a loan to their spouse’s business is not a
transaction which requires explanation, so the party alleging undue influence would need to prove that unfair advantage had been taken of the relationship
Etridge approved Lindley LJ in Allcard v Skinner 1887 LR 36 ChD 145:
Lindley LJ pointed out that where a gift of a small amount is made to a person standing in a confidential relationship to the donor, some proof of the exercise of the influence of the donee must be given. The mere existence of the influence is not enough.
‘But if
the gift is so large as not to be reasonably accounted for on the ground of friendship,
relationship, charity, or other ordinary motives on which ordinary men act, the burden is upon
the donee to support the gift’.
Relationship of Trust & Confidence
Where a party has shown a relationship of trust and confidence and a transaction which requires
explanation, then the wrongdoer might argue (for example) that the innocent party received
comprehensive independent advice about the transaction, and therefore that they could not have
been subjected to undue influence
Consent under Undue Influence
Whether such an argument would succeed will depend on all
the facts. The court has made clear that even when someone fully understands a transaction
having received independent legal advice, it is possible that their consent to it is still being given
only as a result of undue influence.
1.3 Limits on equitable relief (Discretionary)
Where undue influence is proven, a contract (or gift by deed) may be set aside. However, this
relief is equitable and, therefore, discretionary. The court may not allow this relief where the
innocent party has delayed making its claim because ‘delay defeats equity’. Also, it may be
disallowed where the claimant’s conduct has been underhand because those who come to equity
must come with clean hands.
1.4 Summary
- Undue influence will be established where the contract results from overt acts of improper
pressure or coercion – this is similar to duress. - More common is undue influence arising from a relationship where one party has influence or
ascendancy over the other, and abuses this position, for example by misrepresenting the
situation to the other party or simply favouring its own position. - There is no limit to the possible relationships of influence or ascendancy, but they will
commonly be relationships where one party has placed trust and confidence in other. Some
relationships, such as parent/child or solicitor/client are irrebuttably presumed to be such
relationships – they will always amount to a relationship of influence or ascendancy by their
very nature - If a party can show a relationship of trust and confidence and a transaction which calls for an
explanation, then undue influence is inferred, unless the other party can establish to the
contrary. - Relief for undue influence is discretionary and delay or a failure to come to court with ‘clean
hands’ may lead to a remedy being refused.
2 Undue Influence and third parties
Undue influence has, in the past, been largely confined to where a victim is attempting to avoid a
transaction because the other party has exerted an unfair advantage over them by virtue of their relationship to one another However, it sometimes arises, particularly in the context of a marital relationship, that the victim is persuaded to enter into a guarantee or surety contract with a bank or some other creditor on the basis of some undue influence, misrepresentation or other legal
wrong, not by the bank or creditor (ie not by the other party to the transaction), but by some
third party, for instance, their spouse
Actual Notices & Risks of Undue Influence
If the contracting party (eg the bank) has actual notice (ie is aware) of the undue influence, the
contract will be affected. However, it is highly unlikely that the bank will have actual notice of
undue influence. Much more likely is that there are circumstances which might lead a bank to
realise that a transaction carries a risk of undue influence.
Questions to Ask:
Does this have any implications for the transaction? In this area of law, this problem translates to the question of when will the bank be
fixed with constructive notice of the undue influence – ie when will it be treated as having notice
of something that it is not actually aware of
Spousal Undue Influence Factors
Firstly, a relationship between spouses is not one where there is an irrebuttable presumption of a
relationship of influence/ascendancy. The spouse will therefore need to prove such a relationship, most likely by establishing that they placed trust and confidence in their spouse. In most cases, it will be relatively easy to establish this.
Spousal Undue Influence Factors
Secondly, the court has indicated that, in the majority of cases, a spouse offering their interest in
the matrimonial home as security for a loan to their spouse’s business is not a transaction which
requires explanation – so it will be for the party offering security to show more explicitly how their
spouse’s influence has been used unduly
It is only if undue influence is established, that the issue of the notice of the bank will be relevant.
2.2 Barclays Bank plc v O’Brien
The frequent tripartite problem involving spouses and a bank was considered in Barclays Bank plc
v O’Brien [1994] 1 AC 180 and a number of subsequent similar cases which have refined (and
challenged) the principles.
2.2 Barclays Bank plc v O’Brien
Mr O’Brien was a shareholder in a company and wanted to increase the overdraft facility of the
company in question. The company’s bank agreed a loan of £12,000 that was to be guaranteed
by Mr O’Brien, his liability in turn being secured by a second charge over the matrimonial home,
which was jointly owned by Mr O’Brien and his wife. The bank manager gave instructions for a
legal charge to be signed by both Mr O’Brien and his wife, together with a guarantee to be signed
by Mr O’Brien. He also instructed that both Mr O’Brien and his wife should be made aware of the
nature of the transactions and that, if they had any doubts, to obtain independent advice
2.2 Barclays Bank plc v O’Brien
However, the bank staff had not followed these instructions and subsequently both husband and
wife signed the documents without reading them. When the company’s indebtedness increased
beyond the agreed limit, the bank took proceedings to enforce its security against the husband
and wife. In her defence, Mrs O’Brien contended that, firstly, her husband had put undue pressure
on her to sign the agreements and, secondly, that her husband misrepresented the effect of the
legal charge in that she believed it was limited to a sum of £60,000 over three weeks when in fact
the charge covered £135,000.
