Della Vallery Nolan nee Jude and another v Vandyke Jude (St Lucia)

Undue influence is a single equitable concept. Actual and presumed undue influence describe different methods of proving it, not different forms of liability.

A rebuttable presumption requires both a relationship of influence and a transaction that is not readily explicable by ordinary motives. A lawyer-client relationship is legally treated as a relationship of influence. The presumption may be rebutted in any way that establishes free and independent judgment. Independent advice is neither necessary nor conclusive, although it is often the simplest method of rebuttal. An appellate court should respect trial-level credibility findings unless it explains a departure from them.

The respondents, Della and Beverley, challenged transfers of St Lucia land made by their father, Austin Jude, to their brother, Vandyke. They alleged that Vandyke and Diane had procured the transfers through undue influence. Godfrey Smith J dismissed the claims. The Court of Appeal of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court allowed the appeals concerning two July 2007 deeds and ordered that the transfers be set aside.

Vandyke appealed to the Privy Council. The issues were whether the transfers involved actual or presumed undue influence, whether the presumption arose from the relationship and the nature of the gifts, whether it had been rebutted, and whether a constructive trust arose over the transferred land.

Appeal allowed. Lord Burrows delivered the judgment of the Board.

1. Applicable law. The law of St Lucia on undue influence was the same as the law of England and Wales. The Board followed the modern analysis in Royal Bank of Scotland plc v Etridge (No 2) [2001] UKHL 44, [2002] 2 AC 773, as recently summarised in Nature Resorts Ltd v First Citizens Bank Ltd [2022] UKPC 10, [2022] 1 WLR 2788.
2. Presumed undue influence. Actual and presumed undue influence are different methods of proving one concept. The evidential presumption arises only if there is a relationship of influence and the transaction is not readily explicable by ordinary motives. If it arises, the party supporting the transaction must prove that the complainant exercised free and independent judgment.
3. A lawyer-client relationship is subject to an irrebuttable legal rule that it is a relationship of influence. The Board declined to reconsider that rule and held that it could not sensibly be divided according to the particular aspects of the transaction.
4. Application. The trial judge had been entitled to find that the gifts were readily explicable on ordinary motives, having regard to the family circumstances, Vandyke’s work for Austin, Austin’s wishes and the surrounding evidence. The presumption therefore did not arise. In any event, the trial judge’s findings established that Austin continued to make his own decisions and exercised free and independent judgment. Independent advice was not the only means of rebutting the presumption.
5. The Court of Appeal had erred in rejecting the trial judge’s credibility assessments without explaining its departure from them, and had misunderstood the factual character of several transfers. The undue influence claims consequently failed, and the trial judge’s dismissal was restored.
6. Except for the express trust concerning the North Shore lands accepted by Vandyke, there was no basis for a constructive trust over the transferred land. The contrary observation by the Court of Appeal was obiter dicta and was rejected.

• Privy Council: In [2024] UKPC 22, the Board allowed Vandyke’s appeal and restored the trial judge’s dismissal of the undue influence claims concerning the July 2007 deeds.
• Court of Appeal of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (St Lucia): On 18 September 2020, the Court of Appeal, in a judgment led by Michel JA with whom Baptiste JA and Blenman JA agreed, allowed the respondents’ appeals concerning the July 2007 deeds and ordered the transfers set aside.
• Trial court: On 5 July 2017, Godfrey Smith J dismissed the claims brought against Vandyke and Diane.