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.