Undue influence in the case of Barclays Bank v. O''Brian [1994] Lord Browne-Wilkinson was referring to cohabitees.
Member rating: No Rating | Words: | Submitted: Tue Jul 06 2004
On the left is an image preview of every page of this document, and below are the first 150 words with formatting removed:
Question 1/a The fact that Ann and Derek are only partners as opposed to being married is irrelevant as far as undue influence is concerned. In Barclays Bank v. O''Brian [1994] Lord Browne-Wilkinson was referring to cohabitees and obviously this is the case as Ann and Derek have lived together for three years. First Ann will try to establish actual undue influence under Class 1. The burden of proof is on Ann to prove affirmatively that Derek exerted influence which goes beyond what is regarded as acceptable on her, to enter into this particular transaction (Williams v Bailey (1866)). It is always difficult to establish actual undue influence and based on the facts of the case, there is nothing to suggest that there was overbearing or improper pressure exerted on Ann, except mentioning his children seems unlikely to amount to 'emotional pressure' (as opposed to BCCI v. Aboody [1989]). However, if actual...


