Allcard v Skinner (1887)
Facts: Claimant (C) , who had inherited a substantial amount of money, was a nun in a covenant run by the Defendant (D) , the mother superior. According to the rules of the covenant, C had to give up all her money. She made many substantial gifts to D for the purposes of the sisterhood. C then left the covenant 8 years later, and then asked for the property back.
Issue for the Court: When will undue influence by found? Can the plaintiff recover the gifts of money and stock made to the sisterhood despite the delay in seeking recovery?
Held: The Court of Appeal held that although the plaintiff’s gifts were voidable due to undue influence exerted upon her through the training she received in the sisterhood, she was disentitled to recover the gifts because of her conduct and the significant delay in seeking recovery.
Cotton LJ
· Where the gift was the result of influence expressly used by the donee for the purpose
o Or where the relationship between the parties was such as to raise a presumption that the donee had influence over the donor
§ Then the gift can be set aside
· Unless it is proved that in fact the gift was a spontaneous act of the donor acting under circumstances
o which enabled him to exercise an independent will free of the donor’s will.
· Here, C had no access to independent advice.
o And could not freely exercise her will as she was bound to give absolute submission to D
§ She can’t be seen as a free agent.
Lindley LJ
· Evidence shows that no pressure.
o Except the inevitable pressure of the vows and rules was put on C
o There was no deception or unfair advantage taken of her.
§ And none of the money was obtained except for the legitimate purposes of the sisterhood.
· 2 classes where equity sets the gift aside.
o 1. Where there has been some unfair or improper conduct some coercion from outside
§ And some personal advantage taken by the donee(usually but not always)
· Placed in some close and confidential relation to the donor.
o 2. Where the position of the donor to the donee has been such that is has been the duty of the donee to advise the donor, or even manage his property for him
§ In such cases, the court throws the burden of proving to the donee to prove he has not abused his position.
· And that the gift has not come to him through undue influence.
· Doctrine is founded on the wish to save people from being victimised by others
o Not to protect people from folly
§ But to stop people being tricked or misled in any way by others into parting with their property.
§ However, court will not set aside gift just because no independent legal advice could be sought.
§ Not just because there is a relationship of influence.
· Unless the gift is so large so as not to be reasonably accounted for on the grounds of ordinary motives
o In which case the donee must support the gift with other evidence.
Bowen LJ
· Law should protect people from undue influence.
o And only allow these gifts to stand if it is proved that the donor was allowed to consider their worldly position and exercise an independent will about it.
· Fact that X did not use property for own purposes or for wrong purposes is irrelevant.
o Because she was still a person who benefitted from the disposition being made.