28:
154:
the other hand, to protect people from being forced, tricked or misled in any way by others into parting with their property is one of the most legitimate objects of all laws; and the equitable doctrine of undue influence has grown out of and been developed by the necessity of grappling with insidious forms of spiritual tyranny and with the infinite varieties of fraud.
165:
First where the court has been satisfied that the gift was the result of influence expressly used by the donee for the purpose; second, where the relations between the donor and donee have at or shortly before the execution of the gift been such as to raise a presumption that the donee had influence
146:
What then is the principle? Is it that it is right and expedient to save persons from the consequences of their own folly? or is it that it is right and expedient to save them from being victimised by other people? In my opinion the doctrine of undue influence is founded upon the second of these two
153:
14 Ves 273 is itself a clear authority to this effect. It would obviously be to encourage folly, recklessness, extravagance and vice if persons could get back property which they foolishly made away with, whether by giving it to charitable institutions or by bestowing it on less worthy objects. On
138:
133:
from getting restitution. And in any case she would only have been able to recover as much of the gift as remained in the defendant’s hands after some of it had been spent in accordance with her wishes.
147:
principles. Courts of Equity have never set aside gifts on the ground of the folly, imprudence, or want of foresight on the part of donors. The Courts have always repudiated any such jurisdiction.
291:
487:
196:
106:
Miss
Allcard was introduced by the Revd Mr Nihill to Miss Skinner, a lady superior of a Protestant religious order named "Sisters of the Poor". She had to observe vows of
477:
472:
330:
276:
189:
38:
182:
126:
66:
114:. Three days after becoming a member, Miss Allcard made a will bequeathing all property to Miss Skinner, and passed on railway
414:
95:
318:
497:
27:
482:
425:
58:
118:
that she came into possession of in 1872 and 1874. She then claimed the money back after she left the sisterhood.
492:
303:
249:
261:
149:
158:
62:
237:
225:
111:
130:
404:
389:
363:
399:
266:
466:
376:
337:
350:
308:
281:
137:
91:
174:
107:
115:
136:
178:
129:, held that she was unduly influenced but barred by
73:
52:
44:
34:
20:
90:(1887) 36 Ch D 145 is a judicial decision under
163:
144:
457:Cases and Materials on the Law of Restitution
190:
8:
332:Royal Bank of Scotland plc v Etridge (No 2)
197:
183:
175:
26:
17:
488:Court of Appeal (England and Wales) cases
373:National Commercial Bank of Jamaica v Hew
455:A Burrows, J Edelman and E McKendrick,
436:
277:National Westminster Bank plc v Morgan
7:
347:National Westminster Bank plc v Amin
478:English unconscionability case law
473:English unjust enrichment case law
14:
405:[2009] EWHC 1076 (Ch)
415:Undue influence in English law
1:
459:(2nd Ed, OUP, Oxford, 2007)
390:[2004] EWCA Civ 372
364:[2002] EWCA Civ 885
319:Barclays Bank plc v O'Brien
514:
426:Restitution in English law
411:
396:
383:
370:
357:
344:
327:
315:
304:CIBC Mortgages plc v Pitt
300:
288:
273:
267:[1974] EWCA Civ 8
258:
250:Bank of Montreal v Stuart
246:
234:
222:
210:
78:
57:
25:
205:Cases on undue influence
262:Lloyds Bank Ltd v Bundy
377:[2003] UKPC 51
338:[2001] UKHL 41
168:
156:
142:
351:[2002] UKHL 9
309:[1993] UKHL 7
282:[1985] UKHL 2
241:(1886) LR 2 Ch App 55
217:(1887) LR 36 Ch D 145
140:
498:1887 in British law
483:Lord Lindley cases
229:(1866) LR 1 HL 200
150:Huguenin v Baseley
143:
48:(1887) 36 Ch D 145
421:
420:
238:Tate v Williamson
226:Williams v Bayley
214:Allcard v Skinner
87:Allcard v Skinner
83:
82:
21:Allcard v Skinner
505:
493:1887 in case law
444:
441:
386:Pesticcio v Huet
360:Hammond v Osborn
333:
199:
192:
185:
176:
30:
18:
513:
512:
508:
507:
506:
504:
503:
502:
463:
462:
452:
447:
442:
438:
434:
422:
417:
407:
392:
379:
366:
353:
340:
331:
323:
311:
296:
284:
269:
254:
242:
230:
218:
206:
203:
173:
166:over the donor.
124:
104:
96:undue influence
79:Undue influence
39:Court of Appeal
12:
11:
5:
511:
509:
501:
500:
495:
490:
485:
480:
475:
465:
464:
461:
460:
451:
448:
446:
445:
435:
433:
430:
429:
428:
419:
418:
412:
409:
408:
400:Thompson v Foy
397:
394:
393:
384:
381:
380:
371:
368:
367:
358:
355:
354:
345:
342:
341:
328:
325:
324:
316:
313:
312:
301:
298:
297:
289:
286:
285:
274:
271:
270:
259:
256:
255:
247:
244:
243:
235:
232:
231:
223:
220:
219:
211:
208:
207:
204:
202:
201:
194:
187:
179:
172:
169:
123:
120:
103:
100:
81:
80:
76:
75:
71:
70:
55:
54:
50:
49:
46:
42:
41:
36:
32:
31:
23:
22:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
510:
499:
496:
494:
491:
489:
486:
484:
481:
479:
476:
474:
471:
470:
468:
458:
454:
453:
449:
440:
437:
431:
427:
424:
423:
416:
410:
406:
402:
401:
395:
391:
387:
382:
378:
374:
369:
365:
361:
356:
352:
348:
343:
339:
335:
334:
326:
321:
320:
314:
310:
306:
305:
299:
294:
293:
292:BCCI v Aboody
287:
283:
279:
278:
272:
268:
264:
263:
257:
252:
251:
245:
240:
239:
233:
228:
227:
221:
216:
215:
209:
200:
195:
193:
188:
186:
181:
180:
177:
170:
167:
162:
160:
155:
152:
151:
141:Lord Lindley.
139:
135:
132:
128:
121:
119:
117:
113:
109:
101:
99:
97:
94:dealing with
93:
89:
88:
77:
72:
68:
64:
60:
56:
53:Case opinions
51:
47:
43:
40:
37:
33:
29:
24:
19:
16:
456:
439:
398:
385:
372:
359:
346:
329:
322:4 All ER 417
317:
302:
295:4 All ER 955
290:
275:
260:
248:
236:
224:
213:
212:
164:
157:
148:
145:
125:
105:
86:
85:
84:
15:
92:English law
467:Categories
450:References
127:Lindley LJ
159:Cotton LJ
112:obedience
443:at 182-3
171:See also
122:Judgment
74:Keywords
45:Citation
108:poverty
67:Lindley
253:AC 120
161:said,
131:laches
63:Cotton
432:Notes
403:
388:
375:
362:
349:
336:
307:
280:
265:
116:stock
102:Facts
59:Bowen
35:Court
413:see
110:and
65:and
98:.
69:LJJ
469::
61:,
198:e
191:t
184:v
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
