Undue Influence in UK Law

Whether a transaction was brought about by the exercise of undue influence is a question of fact. The evidence required to discharge the burden of proof depends on the nature of the alleged undue influence, the personality of the parties, their relationship, the extent to which the transaction cannot readily be accounted for by the ordinary motives of ordinary persons in that relationship, and all the circumstances of the case.

Proof that the complainant placed trust and confidence in the other party in relation to the management of the complainant's financial affairs, coupled with a transaction which calls for explanation, will normally be sufficient, failing satisfactory evidence to the contrary, to discharge the burden of proof. In other words, proof of these two facts is prima facie evidence that the defendant abused the influence he acquired in the parties' relationship.

Proof that the complainant received advice from a third party before entering into the impugned transaction is one of the matters a court takes into account when weighing all the evidence. The weight, or importance, to be attached to such advice depends on all the circumstances. But a person may understand fully the implications of a proposed transaction, for instance, a substantial gift, and yet still be acting under the undue influence of another.

They include cases of coercion, domination, victimisation and all the insidious techniques of persuasion. At the end of the day, after trial, there will either be proof of undue influence or that proof will fail and it will be found that there was no undue influence. In the former case, whatever the relationship of the parties and however the influence was exerted, there will be found to have been an actual case of undue influence.

It is a presumption which arises if the nature of the relationship between two parties coupled with the nature of the transaction between them is such as justifies, in the absence of any other evidence, an inference that the transaction was procured by the undue influence of one party over the other.

The difficulty is to establish the relationship between the law as laid down in Morgan and the long standing principle laid down in the abuse of confidence cases viz. the law requires those in a fiduciary position who enter into transactions with those to whom they owe fiduciary duties to establish affirmatively that the transaction was a fair one: see for example Demarara Bauxite Co. Ltd. v. Hubbard [1923] A.C. 673; Moodie v. Cox and Hatt [1917] 2 Ch. 71 and the discussion in the Aboody case, at pp. 962G–964C.