Della Vallery Nolan nee Jude and another v Vandyke Jude (St Lucia)
[2024] UKPC 22
Safina Bi Azam v Mohammed Molazam
4 September 2023
[2023] EWHC 2202 (Ch)
High Court
Someone gave away their house for much less than it was worth. A judge said this was because of unfair pressure. Another judge reviewed the case and disagreed, saying that even though the deal was bad, there wasn't enough proof of unfair pressure.
Key Facts
- •Mr. Molazam transferred his house to Mrs. Azam for inadequate consideration.
- •Mrs. Azam subsequently gifted the house to her son.
- •Mr. Molazam claimed the transfers were due to fraud and undue influence.
- •The lower court found in favor of Mr. Molazam, setting aside the transfers.
- •Mrs. Azam appealed the lower court's decision.
Legal Principles
Undue influence, encompassing overt pressure and exploitation of relationships.
Royal Bank of Scotland plc v Etridge (No. 2) [2002] 2 AC 773
Presumption of undue influence arises from trust and confidence coupled with an unexplained transaction.
Royal Bank of Scotland plc v Etridge (No. 2) [2002] 2 AC 773
In cases where both parties testify, the court must determine undue influence based on the totality of evidence.
Royal Bank of Scotland plc v Etridge (No. 2) [2002] 2 AC 773; Royal Bank of Scotland plc v Chandra [2010] EWHC 105 (Ch)
Unconscionable bargains require oppressive terms, bargaining weakness, and knowing exploitation.
Chitty on Contracts, 34th ed., paras. 10.163 to 10.168; Times Travel (UK) Ltd v Pakistan International Airlines Corpn [2023] AC 101
Vulnerability alone, without a resulting relationship of influence, is insufficient for undue influence.
Various cases discussed in sections [76]-[82]
Outcomes
Appeal allowed; lower court's decision overturned.
The judge's finding of undue influence was not supported by the evidence. Mrs. Azam did not exert influence over Mr. Molazam; he acted of his own free will, even if the resulting transaction was highly disadvantageous to him.