Allcard v Skinner (1887) 36 Ch D 145

Facts

• Miss Allcard joined a religious sisterhood led by Skinner and bound herself to absolute obedience under the rules of the order.
• While a member, Miss Allcard made substantial gifts of property to Skinner, acting as the superior of the sisterhood.
• The relationship involved significant influence, with the expectation of submission and no access to independent legal advice at the time of the gifts.
• Years after leaving the sisterhood, Miss Allcard sought to recover the property she had transferred on the grounds of undue influence.
• The Court of Appeal examined whether these gifts were made as a result of undue influence exerted by Skinner.

Issues

1. Whether the transfer of property by Allcard to Skinner was a result of undue influence, either actual or presumed.
2. Whether the absence of independent legal advice and the nature of the relationship constituted a presumption of undue influence.
3. Whether Allcard’s delay in seeking to recover the property constituted acquiescence, thus barring her claim.
4. Whether the transaction was of such a nature (calling for explanation or manifest disadvantage) that it shifted the burden to Skinner to prove no undue influence occurred.

Decision

• The Court of Appeal held that the gifts made by Miss Allcard were the result of undue influence, classifying the relationship within the second class (presumed undue influence).
• The absence of independent legal advice was determinative in maintaining the presumption of undue influence.
• Nevertheless, Allcard’s lengthy delay in pursuing her claim amounted to acquiescence, thereby preventing her from recovering the property.
• The court recognized two classes of undue influence—actual and presumed—and set out the circumstances and burden for each.

Legal Principles

• Two classes of undue influence: (1) actual undue influence—requires proof of specific improper conduct; (2) presumed undue influence—follows from relationships of trust/confidence where transactions require explanation.
• For Class 2A, the presumption arises automatically from the legal status of certain relationships (e.g., religious advisor and disciple, solicitor and client).
• Class 2B depends on showing, from the facts, that a relationship of trust and confidence existed.
• The burden is on the defendant to rebut the presumption by showing the transaction was entered into freely, typically through proof of independent legal advice and informed consent.
• Transactions that are unusual or call for explanation may trigger or strengthen the presumption.
• Delay or acquiescence in bringing a claim may preclude equitable relief, as occurred with Allcard.

Conclusion

Allcard v Skinner established the legal framework distinguishing actual and presumed undue influence, clarified the allocation of burdens of proof, emphasized the importance of independent legal advice in rebutting presumed undue influence, and demonstrated that delay or acquiescence can defeat an otherwise valid claim for relief in equity concerning undue influence.