Dunbar Bank Plc v Nadeem (Lionel Smith, 31 Aug 1998)

Of course it's just a tree. What does it look like ?

RDG online
Restitution Discussion Group Archives

Restitution
front page

What's new?

Another tree!

Archive front page

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2006

2008

2009

Another tree!

<== Previous message Back to index Next message ==>

Sender:	Lionel Smith
Date:	Mon, 31 Aug 1998 14:00:12
Re:	Dunbar Bank Plc v Nadeem

Now reported at [1998] 3 All ER 876 (and also on the Smith Bernal web site at http://www.smithbernal.co.uk/ casebase_search_frame.htm) is Dunbar Bank Plc v Nadeem, decided by the English CA on 18 June 98. It deals with "manifest disadvantage" and the requirement of counter-restitution in rescission. Millett LJ:

"The court of equity is a court of conscience. It sets aside transactions obtained by the exercise of undue influence because such conduct is unconscionable. But however the present case is analysed, whether as a case of actual or presumed influence, the influence was not undue. It is impossible, in my judgment, to criticise Mr Nadeem's conduct as unconscionable."

Comments anyone?

Lionel

<== Previous message Back to index Next message ==>

" These messages are all © their authors. Nothing in them constitutes legal advice, to anyone, on any topic, least of all Restitution. Be warned that very few propositions in Restitution command universal agreement, and certainly not this one. Have a nice day! "

»
»
»
»
»

For editorial policy, see here.
For the unedited archive, see here.
The archive editor is Steve Hedley.