References: [1920] AC 349
Coram: Viscount Haldane
Ratio: The House considered the facts to be established before a will could be set aside as having been obtained by undue influence. Viscount Haldane said: ‘As was said in the House of Lords when Boyce v Rossborough (1856) 6 HLC 2, 49, was decided, in order to set aside the will of a person of sound mind, it is not sufficient to show that the circumstances attending its execution are consistent with hypothesis of its having been obtained by undue influence. It must be shown that they are inconsistent with a contrary hypothesis. Undue influence, in order to render a will void, must be an inference which can justifiably be described by a person looking at the matter judicially to have caused the execution of a paper pretending to express a testator’s mind, but which really does not express his mind, but something else which he did not really mean . . It is also important in this connection to bear in mind that which was laid down by Sir James Hannen in Wingrove v Wingrove (1885) 11 PD 81 and quoted with approval by Lord MacNaughten in delivering the judgment of this Board in Baudains v Richardson (1906) AC 169, and it is not sufficient to establish that a person has the power unduly to overbear the will of the testator. It must be shown that in the particular case the power was exercised, and that it was by means of the exercise of that power that the will was obtained.’
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:
- Cited – Baudains v Richardson PC ((1906) AC 169)
The Board considered the quality of the influence necessary to establish undue influence: ‘Influence may be degrading and pernicious and yet not undue influence in the eyes of the law’ . . - Cited – Wingrove v Wingrove ([1885] 11 PD 81)
To establish the presence of undue influence it is not enough to establish that a person has the power to overbear the will of the testator. It must be shown that the will was a result of the exercise of that power
Sir James Hannen said: ‘To . .
(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Killick v Pountney and Another; Re Killick Deceased ChD (Times 30-Apr-99, Independent 10-May-99, (2000) 1 WTLR 41)
Mr Killick’s will was challenged on the basis that it had been executed under undue influence, and that he had suffered dementia. The deceased’s nephew alleged that the beneficiaries had used their position to influence him to make the will in their . . - Cited – Potter v Potter FdNI (Bailii, [2003] NIFam 2)
The testator’s capacity to make his will was challenged. He had lived alone without electricity, but his doctor said he was known to him and was ‘with it’. Evidence from a member of staff at the solicitor’s office supported the doctor’s description. . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 12 July 2017
Ref: 213658
The post Craig v Lamoureux: HL 1920 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.
