Cheese v Thomas, [1994] 1 WLR 129 (CA)

Can You Answer This?

Practice with real exam questions

Marina, an elderly retiree, relied heavily on her adult niece, Sabrina, for financial and personal advice. At Sabrina’s suggestion, Marina sold her home and used the proceeds to invest in a luxury condominium jointly with Sabrina, with both parties owning proportional shares based on their contributions. Shortly after completion of the purchase, the property market underwent a sharp downturn, leading to a significant loss in the condominium’s value upon resale. Marina, feeling aggrieved, claimed undue influence because of her reliance on Sabrina’s guidance and sought to recoup her entire investment. Sabrina argued that the market fluctuations were an inherent risk shared by both parties and that a complete refund of Marina's contribution was unwarranted.


Which of the following best explains how a court would likely address remedy if undue influence is established in these circumstances?

Introduction

Undue influence, within the context of contract law, arises when one party’s will is improperly swayed by another, vitiating the apparent consent necessary for a valid agreement. This doctrine recognizes that agreements reached under such pressure lack the essential element of free and informed consent. Establishing undue influence requires demonstrating a relationship of trust and confidence coupled with a transaction that calls for an explanation, shifting the burden of proof to the defendant to demonstrate the absence of improper pressure. The court’s response to proven undue influence may involve rescinding the contract and ordering restitution, or in more complex situations, partitioning the relevant property.

Forms of Undue Influence

Undue influence appears in two primary forms: actual undue influence and presumed undue influence. Actual undue influence requires demonstrable coercion or improper pressure exerted by one party upon the other. Presumed undue influence arises where a relationship of trust and confidence exists, and the transaction is sufficiently disadvantageous to the weaker party to raise a presumption of impropriety. This presumption shifts the burden of proof to the dominant party to demonstrate that the transaction was freely entered into.

Cheese v Thomas: Context and Facts

The case of Cheese v Thomas [1994] 1 WLR 129 involved a nephew, Thomas, who persuaded his elderly uncle, Cheese, to sell his house and contribute the proceeds towards the joint purchase of a new property. The agreement stipulated that they would each own a share in the new property proportionate to their contributions. When the property market declined, and the property was sold at a loss, Cheese sought to recover his entire contribution, arguing undue influence.

The Court's Decision and Rationale

The Court of Appeal held that while a relationship of trust and confidence existed between the uncle and nephew, the transaction itself was not manifestly disadvantageous to Cheese at the time it was entered into. The court recognized the natural risk in joint property purchases. However, the court found that the loss suffered was a shared risk, and therefore, the appropriate remedy was not full restitution but rather a division of the remaining proceeds proportionate to each party’s initial contribution. This decision highlighted the principle that relief in undue influence aims to restore parties to their pre-transactional positions, insofar as possible.

Implications of Cheese v Thomas for Property Disputes

Cheese v Thomas provides a significant precedent for dealing with property disputes involving undue influence. It establishes that the courts will examine the specific facts of each case to determine the most appropriate remedy. This may involve a full rescission of the contract or a more tailored approach, such as partitioning the property. The case demonstrates the importance of considering the context of the transaction and the relative vulnerability of the parties involved. Furthermore, the ruling confirms that undue influence does not necessarily render a contract void ab initio but rather voidable at the election of the influenced party.

Partitioning Property as a Remedy

Partitioning property, as demonstrated in Cheese v Thomas, provides a flexible and equitable remedy in undue influence cases where restitution may not be entirely feasible or just. It allows the court to divide property according to the parties’ contributions and the circumstances of the case, ensuring a fairer outcome than complete restitution. This approach recognizes that complete unwinding of complex property transactions might be impractical or detrimental to both parties, particularly when property values have fluctuated. Therefore, partitioning provides a practical solution to restore parties, as closely as possible, to their pre-transactional positions while minimizing further loss.

Conclusion

The judgment in Cheese v Thomas [1994] 1 WLR 129 represents a significant contribution to the jurisprudence of undue influence and its remedies. The case shows the court’s willingness to consider flexible remedies, such as property partitioning, when strict restitution proves impractical or inequitable. The decision emphasizes the importance of examining the specific facts and circumstances of each case, acknowledging the complexities of familial relationships and the fluctuations of property markets. By recognizing the shared risk that is part of the joint property venture, the court established a precedent for proportionate loss sharing in undue influence cases involving property. The principles established in Cheese v Thomas continue to inform judicial decision-making in similar disputes, ensuring a more thorough and equitable approach to remedying the consequences of undue influence. The case highlights the importance of legal counsel in property transactions involving parties with pre-existing relationships of trust and confidence, as it shows the potential for undue influence to arise and the complex legal ramifications that may follow.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.

Related Posts

Explore more resources to support your job and test preparation

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of December 2024. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

Practice. Learn. Excel.

Features designed to support your job and test preparation

Question Bank

Access 100,000+ questions that adapt to your performance level and learning style.

Performance Analytics

Track your progress across topics and identify knowledge gaps with comprehensive analytics and insights.

Multi-Assessment Support

Prepare for multiple exams simultaneously, from academic tests to professional certifications.

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal