ABSTRACT
Like most legal concepts, undue influence cannot be precisely defined; however, it has been helpfully described as follows (Union Bank of Australia v Whitelaw (1906)):
The primary focus of undue influence is the quality of the consent rather than the unconscientious conduct of the stronger party (Commercial Bank v Amadio (1983)). The fact that the stronger, ascendant party has good intentions and no ulterior motive is irrelevant if it can be proven that the influence exerted prevented the weaker party from freely consenting to the transaction: Carey v Norton (1998).1
