Allcard v Skinner, [1886-90] All ER 99, EWCA

Citation:Allcard v Skinner, [1886-90] All ER 99, EWCA

Link to case on WorldLII (reference).

Rule of thumb:If people have been foolish and suffered injury or loss, does the law provide them a remedy? No, when a person has knowingly shown ‘folly’, ‘imprudence’ or ‘want of foresight’ these are valid defences. This is also a defence in an all claims, such as an undue influence claim, that the person was fully aware of the silly act they had been manipulated into doing & required no advice from an independent third party. This a prevailing leitmotif of all legal arguments – the law does not protect stupid people.

Judgment:

‘What then is the principle? Is it that it is right and expedient to save persons from the consequences of their own folly? Or is it that it is right and expedient to save them from being victimised by other people? Courts of Equity have never set aside gifts on the grounds of the folly, imprudence, or want of foresight on the part of donors... On the other hand, to protect people from being forced, tricked, or misled in any way by others into parting with their property is one of the most legitimate of all laws; and the equitable doctrine of undue influence has grown out of and been developed by the necessity of grappling with insidious forms of spiritual tyranny and with the infinite varieties of fraud’, Lindley LJ at 100

Warning: This is not professional legal advice. This is not professional legal education advice. Please obtain professional guidance before embarking on any legal course of action. This is just an interpretation of a Judgment by persons of legal insight & varying levels of legal specialism, experience & expertise. Please read the Judgment yourself and form your own interpretation of it with professional assistance.