Continue reading "Presumed Undue Influence: When advice is neither necessary nor sufficient"
This post is only available to members.
Presumed Undue Influence: When advice is neither necessary nor sufficient
Ruth Hughes reviews case law to present the up-to-date position on presumed undue influence ‘In addition to a relationship of influence, in order for the presumption of undue influence to apply to a transaction, the transaction must be such that it “calls for an explanation”.’Equity protects so that injustice may not be perpetrated. In the …
Cases Referenced
Cases in bold have further reading - click to view related articles.
- Allcard v Skinner (1887) LR 36 Ch D 145
- Credit Lyonnais Bank Nederland NV v Burch [1997] All ER 144
- Curtis & ors v Pulbrook & anor [2009] EWHC 782 (Ch); [2011] WTLR 1503
- D v R (Deputy for S) [2010] EWHC 2405 (CoP)
- Goldsworthy v Brickell [1987] Ch 378
- Inche Noriah v Shaik Allie Bin Omar [1929] AC 127
- Jennings v Cairns [2004] WTLR 361
- John v James [1991] FSR 397
- Macklin v Dowsett [2005] WTLR 1561
- Mahony v Purnell [1996] 3 All ER 61
- Mortgage Agency Services Number Two Ltd v Charter [2003] EWCA Civ 490
- Pesticcio v Huet [2004] WTLR 1327
- Popowski v Popowski [2004] EWHC 668 (Ch)
- Re Brocklehurst (deceased) [1978] Ch 14
- Royal Bank of Scotland v Etridge (AP) [2001] UKHL 44
- Smith v Cooper [2010] EWCA Civ 722; [2011] WTLR 691
- Tate v Williamson (1866) 2 Ch App 55
- Turkey v Awadh [2005] EWCA Civ 382; [2006] WTLR 553
- Williams v Williams [2003] WTLR 1371
- Wright v Hodgkinson [2005] WTLR 435
- Zamet v Hayman [1961] 1 WLR 1442