Presumed Undue Influence: The False Partition from Fiduciary Accountability

(2015) 34 University of Queensland Law Journal 171

46 Pages Posted: 30 Oct 2015 Last revised: 24 Apr 2016

Date Written: October 15, 2015

Abstract

The sole function of the law of fiduciary accountability is to control the opportunism that may impair our limited access arrangements. Unfortunately the clarity of that function has faded. Some judges have misconstrued the conceptual boundaries of the regulation. The judicial treatment of what today commonly is described as the doctrine of presumed undue influence powerfully illustrates the deterioration in clarity. Over the course of the past two centuries English courts have slowly been separating the ‘doctrine’ of presumed undue influence from the law of fiduciary accountability. There was no explicit declaration of that separation. Instead, in a blinkered process, judges simply repeatedly cited certain cases to produce what appeared to be a line of authority that differed from conventional fiduciary regulation. That appearance of difference led other judges to devise novel criteria for the application of the supposed doctrine. That raised fresh concerns and accelerated the conceptual disorder.

Keywords: undue influence, presumed undue influence, class 2b, Allcard, Etridge (No 2), abuse of confidence

Suggested Citation

Flannigan, Robert, Presumed Undue Influence: The False Partition from Fiduciary Accountability (October 15, 2015). (2015) 34 University of Queensland Law Journal 171, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2682755 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2682755

Robert Flannigan (Contact Author)

University of Saskatchewan ( email )

15 Campus Drive
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7N 5A6
Canada
306-966-5876 (Phone)
306-966-5900 (Fax)

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
888
Abstract Views
3,308
Rank
49,574
PlumX Metrics