Key Facts
- •Acrimonious dispute among the children of Austin Jude concerning land ownership in St Lucia.
- •Austin Jude, through his power of attorney Diane, transferred various parcels of land to his son Vandyke.
- •Claimants (Della and Beverley) alleged undue influence by Vandyke and Diane over Austin in these transfers.
- •The trial judge dismissed the claims, finding Vandyke and Diane credible witnesses and Austin capable of independent decision-making.
- •The Court of Appeal overturned the trial judge's decision regarding transfers made by two deeds executed on July 23, 2007.
- •Vandyke appealed to the Privy Council.
Legal Principles
Undue influence is a single concept, with actual and presumed undue influence representing different methods of proof.
Royal Bank of Scotland plc v Etridge (No 2) [2001] UKHL 44; Nature Resorts Ltd v First Citizens Bank Ltd [2022] UKPC 10
To establish presumed undue influence, a relationship of influence and a transaction not readily explicable by ordinary motives must be shown.
Royal Bank of Scotland plc v Etridge (No 2) [2001] UKHL 44; Nature Resorts Ltd v First Citizens Bank Ltd [2022] UKPC 10
A lawyer-client relationship is presumed to be one of influence.
Various cases cited in the judgment, including Allcard v Skinner (1887) 36 Ch D 145
The presumption of undue influence can be rebutted by showing the influenced party exercised free and independent judgment; independent advice is not necessarily required.
Royal Bank of Scotland plc v Etridge (No 2) [2001] UKHL 44; Nature Resorts Ltd v First Citizens Bank Ltd [2022] UKPC 10
The trial judge's assessment of witness credibility should be given significant weight.
Implicit in the judgment's critique of the Court of Appeal.
Outcomes
The Privy Council allowed Vandyke's appeal.
The Court of Appeal erred in its understanding of undue influence, disregarded the trial judge's assessment of witness credibility, and failed to fully appreciate the complexities of the factual situation. The Privy Council found no evidence of actual or presumed undue influence and upheld the trial judge's original dismissal of the claims.