Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 845 views

    Inche Noriah V Shaik Allie PDF

    Uploaded by

    ikrex ali
    This case involved a claim of undue influence between an aunt and her nephew. The aunt relied heavily on her nephew to manage her affairs due to old age and illiteracy. This placed the nephew in a position to dominate her will. While no actual undue influence was proven, the nature of their relationship established a presumption of undue influence when the aunt executed a deed transferring her property to the nephew. The claim of undue influence was successful because the nephew failed to rebut this presumption, even though he argued the aunt had received independent legal advice.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Inche Noriah V Shaik Allie PDF

    Uploaded by

    ikrex ali
    845 views4 pages
    This case involved a claim of undue influence between an aunt and her nephew. The aunt relied heavily on her nephew to manage her affairs due to old age and illiteracy. This placed the nephew in a position to dominate her will. While no actual undue influence was proven, the nature of their relationship established a presumption of undue influence when the aunt executed a deed transferring her property to the nephew. The claim of undue influence was successful because the nephew failed to rebut this presumption, even though he argued the aunt had received independent legal advice.

    Original Title

    inche-noriah-v-shaik-allie.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involved a claim of undue influence between an aunt and her nephew. The aunt relied heavily on her nephew to manage her affairs due to old age and illiteracy. This placed the nephew in a position to dominate her will. While no actual undue influence was proven, the nature of their relationship established a presumption of undue influence when the aunt executed a deed transferring her property to the nephew. The claim of undue influence was successful because the nephew failed to rebut this presumption, even though he argued the aunt had received independent legal advice.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    845 views4 pages

    Inche Noriah V Shaik Allie PDF

    Uploaded by

    ikrex ali
    This case involved a claim of undue influence between an aunt and her nephew. The aunt relied heavily on her nephew to manage her affairs due to old age and illiteracy. This placed the nephew in a position to dominate her will. While no actual undue influence was proven, the nature of their relationship established a presumption of undue influence when the aunt executed a deed transferring her property to the nephew. The claim of undue influence was successful because the nephew failed to rebut this presumption, even though he argued the aunt had received independent legal advice.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 4

    OUTLINE

    No Item Answer Explanation Relevant Provision(s)


    1 Why did the plaintiff bring the case?
    2 What is the nature of relationship between the disputing parties? (Who are they)
    3 Was the defendant in a position to dominate the will of the plaintiff?
    4 Was there a real or apparent authority?
    5 Was there a fiduciary relationship?
    6 Was there an affected mental capacity?
    7 Did the defendant use his dominating position?
    8 Was there an unfair advantage obtained by the defendant?
    9 Was the claim of Undue Influence successful? Why/Why not?
    10 What was the remedy given by court?

    Case​: Inche Noriah v Shaik Allie bin Omar​ [1929] AC 127


    Tutorial​: Section 3, Wednesday 4-5pm
    Name of Group Members:
    1. Umy Marshita Binti Mohamed Azhar (1818016)
    2. Nur Iman Taqiah Binti Mohamad Mazlan (1813400)
    3. Adam Haikal (1816761)
    No Item Answer Explanation Relevant
    Provision(s)
    1 Why did the plaintiff Brought a case On the ground that the impugned Irrelevant.
    bring the case?
    claiming that a deed of gift, conferring all rights to
    deed of gift the appellant’s property, executed in
    should be set the respondent’s favour was procured
    aside. by his undue influence.
    2 What is the nature of This case The relationship is between an aunt No relevant
    relationship between Singaporean/En
    illustrates the and her nephew who lives with her.
    the disputing parties? glish provisions.
    (Who are they) relationship The respondent moved in with the
    Relevant
    between an aunt appellant after the death of his Malaysian
    (appellant) and mother. He stayed with the appellant provision:
    ​s 16(1)
    her nephew when her daughter passed away and Contracts Act
    (respondent) by even collected rent on behalf of her. 1950
    marriage.
    3 Was the defendant in a Yes. The disputing parties are in a No relevant
    position to dominate Singaporean/En
    fiduciary relationship. The Privy
    the will of the plaintiff? glish provisions.
    Council accepted the trial judge’s
    Relevant
    observation: “The appellant relied on Malaysian
    the respondent to manage most her provision:
    ​ss 16(1), 16(2)
    affairs as she was a feeble old Contracts Act
    woman, unable to leave the house, 1950
    relying entirely upon the respondent
    even for her food and clothes. She
    also left the management of her
    affairs to him, so she had no
    knowledge of her own affairs or as to
    the value of her properties, and that
    she was completely in the
    respondent’s hands.”
    4 Was there a real or No. Irrelevant. No relevant
    apparent authority? Singaporean/En
    glish provisions.

    Relevant
    Malaysian
    provision:
    ​s 16(2)(a)
    Contracts Act
    1950
    5 Was there a fiduciary Yes. The Appellant’s great reliance on the No relevant
    relationship? Respondent due to her old age and Singaporean/En
    illiteracy rendering her helpless, glish provisions.
    unable to manage her own needs and
    affairs. After the death of her Relevant
    daughter, the appellant rarely ever Malaysian
    left the house, relying solely on the provision:
    respondent for everything, including s 16(2)(a) +
    the management of her property and Illustration (a)
    basic life necessities. This places the Contracts Act
    respondent in a position to dominate 1950
    the will of the appellant.
    6 Was there an affected Yes. The Appellant was of great age and No relevant
    mental capacity? wholly illiterate, a feeble old woman Singaporean/En
    who completely relied on the glish provisions.
    Respondent to manage all her affairs,
    including her domestic affairs. The Relevant
    Appellant’s inability to manage and Malaysian
    acknowledge her own affairs depicts provision:
    her failure of an independent s 16(2)(b) +
    reasoning. Illustration (b)
    Contracts Act
    1950
    7 Did the defendant use No. In this case, no actual undue No relevant
    his dominating influence was proven. Instead, it was Singaporean/En
    position? agreed that a presumption of undue glish provisions.
    influence had already arisen due to
    the peculiarity of the relationship Relevant
    between the appellant and Malaysian
    respondent. provision:
    ​s 16(1)
    Contracts Act
    1950
    8 Was there an unfair Yes The respondent, by the appellant’s No relevant
    advantage obtained by execution of the deed of gift in Singaporean/En
    the defendant? dispute, had gained complete glish provisions.
    beneficiary power of nearly all of the
    appellant’s properties. The appellant, Relevant
    however, was only left with an Malaysian
    annual income of ~$30. This provision:
    supplements the existence of the ​s 16(1)
    respondent’s position to dominate the Contracts Act
    appellant’s will in (5). 1950
    9 Was the claim of Yes As evident in (5),(6) and (8), the No relevant
    Undue Influence relationship between the parties and Singaporean/En
    successful? Why/Why the unfair advantage obtained by the glish provisions.
    not? respondent was enough to establish a
    presumption of undue influence. In Relevant
    this case the appellant sought to rebut Malaysian
    the presumption by proving that the provision:
    defendant had sought independent ss 16(1), 16
    legal advice. However, the court (2)(a), 16(3)(a),
    decided that such legal advice must Contracts Act
    have been in contemplation of all 1950
    relevant factors (the magnitude and
    gravity of the decision). Since this
    was not the case, the court found the
    presumption of undue influence
    unrebutted.
    10 What was the remedy Appeal allowed. Upon deciding that the presumption Irrelevant.
    given by court? of undue was sustained and unshaken
    by the respondent, the court allowed
    the appeal, set aside the deed of gift,
    affirming the trial judge’s decision
    and ordered the respondent to bear
    the cost of the appeal and the costs of
    the action before this appeal. As the
    matter in dispute was not a contract
    in the strict sense, the question of
    rescission or voidability never arose.

    You might also like