Allcard v. Skinner (1887) 36 Ch D 145

Quick Summary

In Allcard v. Skinner (1887), a young woman joined a religious sisterhood and made large gifts after vows of poverty and obedience. Because the relationship allowed strong spiritual control, the law presumed undue influence. Such gifts are voidable unless the donee proves the donor’s free and informed consent with independent advice. However, equity also requires prompt action; her long delay barred relief.

Issues

• Does a fiduciary/spiritual relationship raise a presumption of undue influence?
• Who bears the burden to prove free, informed consent?
• Does delay (laches) bar recovery of gifts?

Rules

1. A fiduciary or influential relationship (e.g., spiritual adviser–devotee) presumes undue influence for large voluntary gifts.
2. Burden on donee: prove the donor acted freely, with full understanding and independent legal advice.
3. Prompt action required: a claimant must act soon after the influence ends; delay defeats equity.

Arguments

Judgment

The Court of Appeal accepted that the relationship enabled influence and that the gifts were presumptively affected by it. Such gifts are voidable unless the donee proves the donor’s free and informed consent with independence from pressure. However, the court refused recovery because the claimant delayed for years after leaving the sisterhood. Laches defeated the claim.

Ratio Decidendi

• In relationships of ascendancy, large voluntary gifts raise a presumption of undue influence.
• Donee must rebut by showing the donor’s free will, full understanding, and independent advice.
• Equitable relief is denied if the claimant does not act promptly after the influence ends.

Why It Matters

This case anchors modern doctrine on undue influence, clarifies the burden shift to the donee, and warns claimants that delay kills equity. It guides lawyers to secure independent advice where influence might be presumed.

Key Takeaways

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “PIP: Presume–Independence–Promptness.”

1. Presume: Relationship of influence → presumption against gift.
2. Independence: Donee must show independent advice and free will.
3. Promptness: Donor must act quickly or lose the remedy.

IRAC Outline

Issue

Does a fiduciary/spiritual relationship create a presumption of undue influence for large voluntary gifts, and does delay bar relief?

Rule

Presumption arises; burden shifts to donee to prove free, informed consent with independent advice. Equity denies relief for undue delay.

Application

Relationship enabled spiritual control; gifts made without independent advice. Although presumption applied, claimant waited for years after leaving the order.

Conclusion

Gifts were voidable but unrecoverable due to laches.

Glossary

Undue Influence

Pressure or ascendancy that overpowers a person’s free will in making a gift or contract.

Voidable

Valid until set aside by the court upon a proper claim.

Laches

Delay that makes it unfair to grant equitable relief.

Independent Advice

Genuine legal advice free from the influence of the donee.

Student FAQs

Related Cases