Wallbank & Anor v Price

Undue influence is not established merely because a relationship is tempestuous or one party alleges past bullying. The claimant must prove that the transaction was procured by unacceptable influence, assessed on the totality of the evidence. Any evidential presumption arising from the relationship and transaction remains a matter of proof; it is not a separate legal presumption requiring positive justification. A home-made property declaration must be interpreted as a whole. Where its language gives up a beneficial interest, refers to a half share and is signed by both joint tenants, it may sever the equitable joint tenancy, operate as a release, and create a trust notwithstanding the absence of technical words.

The claimants, the daughters of the deceased Martin Wallbank, sought the beneficial interest in the former matrimonial home. Their mother, Susan Price, had signed a handwritten declaration stating that she would give up her rights in the property, subject to her daughters receiving her half share on disposal or at her former husband’s discretion.

Mrs Price alleged that the declaration was procured by duress or undue influence and denied that it severed the beneficial joint tenancy or created a trust. The court therefore had to determine whether the declaration was freely made and, if so, its effect on the equitable ownership of the property.

1. Undue influence and duress. The governing principles were taken from Royal Bank of Scotland plc v Etridge (No 2) [2002] 2 AC 773. Undue influence concerns whether consent was produced by unacceptable means. The burden generally rests on the person alleging it, although an evidential presumption may arise where the relationship and transaction justify an inference of influence. The relationship of husband and wife does not create the special legal presumption requiring the transaction to be positively justified.
2. The court rejected the allegations of sustained physical abuse, threats to kill, and threats to disclose photographs. The evidence established a tempestuous marriage, frequent verbal arguments and one incident involving an ashtray, but not coercion or a relationship of dominance and subordination. The transaction did not call for explanation in the relevant sense. It involved the severance of a joint tenancy and provision for relatively modest benefits to the parties’ daughters after separation. Any evidential presumption was rebutted, and Mrs Price acted of her own free will.
3. Construction of the declaration. The document had to be read as a whole, with preference given to an interpretation producing a legally effective instrument where available. The first part amounted in substance to a release of Mrs Price’s beneficial interest. The reference to her daughters receiving her “half share”, together with the signature of both joint tenants, was inconsistent with the continuing equitable joint tenancy and constituted an agreement severing it under section 36(2) of the Law of Property Act 1925.
4. The words stating that the daughters “should” receive the half share were sufficient to show an intention to create a trust; no special technical words were required. The declaration satisfied the writing and signature requirements of section 53(1)(b) and (c) of the Law of Property Act 1925. The daughters’ interest was not immediately vested, but the interim beneficial interest passed to Mr Wallbank under the release and, on his intestate death, passed with his own half share to the claimants.
5. The claim succeeded. Mrs Price was ordered to execute the documents necessary to transfer the legal title to the claimants.