Lloyds Bank Limited v Bundy

Denning held that the contract was voidable owing to the unequal bargaining position in which Bundy had found himself vis-à-vis the bank. He held that undue influence was a category of a wider class where the balance of power between the parties was such as to merit the interference of the court. It was apparent that Bundy had entered the contract without independent advice. Denning concluded it was very unfair and pressures were brought to bear by the bank.[1]

Denning began by stating that the general rule is that a person who signs a contract must fulfill its terms. He then listed five exceptions to that general rule: (1) duress of goods; (2) unconscionable transaction; (3) undue influence; (4) undue pressure; (5) salvage agreements.[1]

After summarising each of these in turn, he stated that there is a common thread running through all of them:

Gathering all together, I would suggest that through all these instances there runs a single thread. They rest on "inequality of bargaining power." By virtue of it, the English law gives relief to one who, without independent advice, enters into a contract upon terms which are very unfair or transfers property for a consideration which is grossly inadequate, when his bargaining power is grievously impaired by reason of his own needs or desires, or by his own ignorance or infirmity, coupled with undue influences or pressures brought to bear on him by or for the benefit of the other.[1]

Denning then applied those principles to the facts of the case: (1) The consideration moving from the bank was grossly inadequate; (2) The relationship between the bank and the father was one of trust and confidence; (3) The relationship between the father and the son was one where the father's natural affection had much influence on him; (4) There was a conflict of interest between the bank and the father. Yet the bank did not realise it. Nor did it suggest that the father should get independent advice.[1]

Denning concluded that on those facts, the case had been made out for inequality of bargaining power, and would therefore allow the appeal.[1]

Justice Sachs held that a presumption of undue influence had not been rebutted, because Bundy was not independently advised. He had placed himself in the hands of the bank. He noted the bank's concession that "in the normal course of transactions by which a customer guarantees a third party's obligations, the relationship does not arise."[1]

Sachs concluded that when the existence of a special relationship has been established, then a fiduciary duty arises. Here, the bank did not advise Bundy to get independent legal advice. Instead, the bank loans officer gave his own views on the son's business and advised Bundy to give the guarantee. That was a manifest breach of the duty to take fiduciary care: "then any possible use of the relevant influence is, irrespective of the intentions of the person possessing it, regarded in relation to the transaction under consideration as an abuse – unless and until the duty of fiduciary care has been shown to be fulfilled or the transaction is shown to be truly for the benefit of the person influenced."[1]

Sachs commented that although the counsel for the bank "urged in somewhat doom-laden terms" that banking practice would be seriously affected if the appeal were allowed, but Sachs dismissed that argument. He agreed the appeal should be allowed.[1]

Sachs declined to express an opinion on Lord Denning's dicta.[1]

Justice Cairns concurred in allowing the appeal, for the reasons given by Justice Sachs.[1]