Undue Influence

As James Munby firmly stated, “it is impossible to define, and difficult even to describe, at what point at which the influence becomes, in the eye of law, undue.” The doctrine of undue influence has been agreed upon as “the ground of relief developed by the courts of equity as a court of conscience.” It is an ordinary behaviour to influence individuals and persuade them to enter into transactions. However, the aim is to ensure that the influence exercised is not abused. On the grounds of these concepts, it is impossible to set a flawless higher definitive criterion to be directly applied in every case to recognize whether undue influence had been exercised or not. Attempting to do that has been problematic. Firstly, courts have not been able to always distinguish between undue influence and unconscionability dealing. Secondly, titles categorizing undue influence as either “claimant-sided” or “defendant-sided” have not been successful in presenting undue influence as an independent doctrine. Thirdly, subdividing undue influence into categories and setting rules under them increased the possibility of misconceptions arising. Since undue influence is an equitable doctrine, the criteria set to define it ought to only provide a framework for judges to exercise their jurisdiction. Hence, it allows them to assess cases flexibly based on the particulate facts provided rather than looking at undue influence as a common law doctrine and applying the rules set strictly. A main difficulty in attempting to set a comprehensive definitive description of undue influence is its numerous resemblances with the unconscionability notion. The usage of the word “unconscionable” in describing undue influence has established an opinion that it is based on the Unconscionability Bargains doctrine. Furthermore, misconception can be recognized in the case Lloyds Bank Plc v Lucken, where Mr. Lucken had pressured Mrs. Lucken to obtain a loan using her house’s security. Mrs. Lucken