Williams v Bayley
An agreement obtained by pressure on a father through a threat to prosecute his son is set aside for undue pressure.
Facts
A young man forged his father's signature on promissory notes and used them to obtain money from the bank. When the bank discovered the forgeries, it made clear to the father that his son would be prosecuted, which could result in transportation, unless the father provided security. The father, under great distress, agreed to mortgage his property to the bank to secure the amount owed, and the notes were handed back. The bank later sought to enforce the mortgage.
Legal principle
The House of Lords held that the mortgage could be set aside. The father had entered into it under pressure from the bank, which had used the threat of prosecuting his son to obtain security. An agreement to stifle a prosecution is also illegal, but the main ground of the decision was that the father had not been a free and voluntary agent, and equity would not allow the bank to take advantage of the pressure it had applied. The case is an early example of what is now recognised as duress and undue influence based on illegitimate pressure.
Related cases on duress and undue influence
- Allcard v Skinner (1887) 36 Ch D 145
- 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
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.
