Restitution
front page

What's new?

Archive front page

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2006

2008

2009

Chater is an undue influence case that Steve Hedley posted on his website some time ago; I was prompted to take a closer look at it by its recent appearance in the [2004] P & CR. Of particular interest are Scott-Baker LJ's assumption at [20] and [22] that UI is an 'equitable wrong', and his analysis of the manifest disadvantage requirement at [25]-[30] which culminates in the observation at [30] that there is 'a possible distinction between a transaction explicable only on the basis that undue influence had been exercised to procure it (Lord Scarman [in Natwest v Morgan]) and one which called for an explanation, which if not given would enable the court to infer that it could only have been procured by undue influence (Lord Nicholls [in Etridge])' - he concludes that to the extent that the two approaches differ, Lord Nicholls' approach is to be preferred. I think that must be right, but it seems odd to me that he made no reference to Lindley LJ's formulation in Allcard v Skinner, to which Lord Nicholls also referred in Etridge.

Elsewhere in the forest: a big new contribution judgment in the HCA - http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2004/7.html - including references to 'restitution for breach of trust' that are going to give Steven Elliott and Jamie Edelman an upset stomach.

Charles

Dr Charles Mitchell
Reader in Law
Director of Postgraduate Taught Programmes
School of Law
King's College London
Strand
London WC2R 2LS

tel: 020 7848 2290
fax: 020 7848 2465