The case involved a dispute between siblings over substantial land transfers made by their late father. The father, Austin Jude, owned significant property in St Lucia. Before his death, Austin transferred various parcels of land to one of his children, Vandyke, through two deeds. Vandyke acted as Austin’s lawyer for these transactions alongside his sister, Diane, who acted as Austin’s power of attorney.

Austin’s other children, Della and Beverley, sought to impugn the deeds by claiming their father executed them due to Vandyke and Diane’s undue influence.

Undue influence is defined as a situation where a relationship between two parties causes one (A) to exert influence on the other (B), preventing B from exercising free and independent judgment in a transaction between them. The Privy Council stressed that while undue influence is a singular concept, it can be proved in two ways: actual or presumed undue influence.

In this case, the Privy Council went through both methods to determine whether Vandyke or Diane exerted undue influence:

• On actual undue influence, the Board found no proof Vandyke or Diane did anything to direct Austin's mind to influence the transfers. The trial judge had accepted Vandyke and Diane as credible and honest witnesses.
• On presumed influence, this required both (1) a relationship of influence and (2) for the transaction not to be readily explicable on ordinary motives. Upon meeting both requirements, the burden of proof shifts to the party seeking to uphold the transaction to prove that the party making the transaction was exercising free and independent judgment.

First, the Privy Council agreed that the lawyer-client relationship between Vandyke and Austin satisfied the necessary relationship of influence. Second, on balance, the Privy Council agreed that the transfers were readily explainable by ordinary motives. Despite the previous terrible relationship and trust issues between Austin and Vandyke, this was outweighed by factors including Austin’s terminal illness, Vandyke’s competence, and Della’s personal issues and disinterest in her father’s business.

The Privy Council further confirmed that in any event, the presumption was rebutted by Vandyke as Austin exercised free and independent judgment by consistently wanting to “call the shots” and make his own decisions.

Therefore, the Privy Council failed to find actual or presumed undue influence impacting the deeds and allowed the appeal. This judgment clarifies the law of undue influence regarding fiduciary relationships, like lawyer and client, and, as highly persuasive authority across common law jurisdictions including the BVI, the Cayman Islands and Bermuda, will guide practitioners on the evidential requirements for cases of presumed influence.