Allcard v Skinner
A gift made under the undue influence of a person in a relationship of trust can be set aside, but the right is lost by delay.
Facts
In 1868 Miss Allcard joined a Protestant religious order, the Sisters of the Church, whose Lady Superior was Miss Skinner. Members took vows of poverty, chastity and obedience, and the rules of the order forbade members from seeking advice from anyone outside it without the Lady Superior's consent. During her time in the order, Miss Allcard gave property worth about £7,000 to Miss Skinner for the order. She left the order in 1879 and became a member of the Roman Catholic Church, but did not try to recover her property until 1885.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that the gifts had been made under undue influence. Because of the relationship between Miss Allcard and the Lady Superior, and the rules preventing her from obtaining independent advice, the court would presume undue influence, even though Miss Skinner had acted in good faith and not for her own benefit. However, Miss Allcard could not recover the property, because she had delayed for six years after leaving the order, when she was free from the influence, and had thereby affirmed the gifts. Lindley LJ explained that the court's concern is to prevent relations of influence from being abused.
Related cases on duress and undue influence
- Atlas Express Ltd v Kafco (Importers and Distributors) Ltd [1989] QB 833
- Barclays Bank plc v O'Brien [1994] 1 AC 180
- Barton v Armstrong [1976] AC 104
- CIBC Mortgages plc v Pitt [1994] 1 AC 200
- Credit Lyonnais Bank Nederland NV v Burch [1997] 1 All ER 144
- CTN Cash and Carry Ltd v Gallaher Ltd [1994] 4 All ER 714
- Lloyds Bank Ltd v Bundy [1975] QB 326
- National Westminster Bank plc v Morgan [1985] AC 686
Studying contract law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
