Your Status: Logged out Log in

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

Page Preview
Preview
Previous 1 of 11 Next

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...

Get instant access



  • Instant, unlimited access to our documents in full
  • Swap your work for free access, or pay £4.99
  • To see the full version of this document and 145,970 others
Register Now
OR

Receive email updates for this category



  • Simply tell us your email address and receive a weekly Study Help Email for FREE
  • Receive 3 FREE essay views with each email
  • Get all the latest essays from Coursework.Info & discussion from TheStudentRoom.co.uk