Undue Influence in UK Law

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. 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.

He made an emotional scene on the day she signed and told her that if she did not sign, the company would be bankrupt and her son John would lose his home. These were heavy family pressures but not particularly unusual nor sufficient, in my opinion, to overset and bear down the will of Mrs. O'Brien. She signed because she was persuaded that it was the right thing to do, not because her husband's pressure deprived her consent of reality.

Given that there are two innocent parties, each enjoying rights, the earlier right prevails against the later right if the acquirer of the later right knows of the earlier right (actual notice) or would have discovered it had he taken proper steps (constructive notice).

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.