U – Undue influence
28/3/24
ONE SAVINGS BANK PLC v WALLER-EDWARDS [2024] EWCA Civ 302
A mortgage had been obtained in joint names partly for joint non-commercial purposes and partly for the benefit of only one of the borrowers. A claim to set aside the mortgage on grounds that the bank was put on inquiry of undue influence by one party over the other was rejected. On the facts the only matter that might have put the bank on inquiry was the fact that of the £384,000 loaned, £40,000 was to be used to pay off the sole debts of one borrower. In assessing whether a loan is for the purposes of one borrower as distinct from joint purposes, it is right to look at the transaction as a whole and to decide the question as a matter of fact and degree. Looked at as a whole and from the point of view of what the bank knew, this was a case of joint borrowing for joint purposes.
3/2/14
BOVINGDON v BELCHER [2014] EWHC (Ch)
Monies paid to an agent as a result of the agent’s undue influence or breach of duty as agent, were ordered to be repaid.
24/6/13
EVANS v LLOYD [2013] EWHC 1725 (Ch)
A transfer of farm land as a gift had not been procured by undue influence. Although the donor had relied on the donees for accommodation, food and transport, the donees had not managed the donor’s finances and there had not been a sufficient relationship of trust or ascendancy. The gifts were explicable by reference to ordinary motives: the donor and donees were farmers, the donees had treated the donor as a member of their family, and the donor had wanted the land to be kept for farming. The donor had also received some limited legal advice. Although a gift could be set aside as an unconscionable transaction, the donees had not acted with the moral culpability required to engage that doctrine.
13/6/13
HART v BURBIDGE [2013] EWHC 1628 (Ch)
Shortly before her death the deceased transferred money to the defendants, one of whom was her attorney, to buy a property in which the deceased lived for a short while. There had been a relationship of trust and confidence between the deceased and the attorney and the transaction called for explanation. The evidential burden of disproving undue influence shifted to the defendant and had not been discharged.
6/12/12
PROCTOR v PROCTOR [2012] EWHC 4050 (Ch)
Where gifts of money were set aside for undue influence, the claimant was entitled to trace the money into, and to an equitable lien on, property which the donee had bought using the money.
27/7/12
DAVIES v AIB GROUP (UK) PLC [2012] EWHC 2178 (Ch)
On the facts a wife had not been subjected to undue influence by her husband into agreeing facilities which rendered her liable not only for personal borrowing but also borrowing of a company of which she was a director. The husband could not be regarded as having conned his wife into the transaction. Rather he had had a genuine to desire to see she received advice and could not be said to have suppressed material information.