are relationships to which the presumption will be readily assumed to apply, in the absence of evidence to the contrary. This group appears to include the relationship between a parent and child, religious adviser and disciple, doctor and patient and solicitor and client.

The second group does not immediately give rise to the presumption, but requires specific proof (sometimes more readily found than others; see above) that there was the required degree of ‘trust and confidence’ between the parties. The relationship between employer and employee, husband and wife and a parent and child outside the household will not be automatically relationships in which undue influence will be presumed. However, the serious risk of ‘abuse of power’ that could still exist in many such cases is likely to lead the courts to examine them with particular care, to see if there was potential for undue influence on the particular facts. For example in Barclays Bank v O’Brien,41 Lord Browne-Wilkinson states that the law treats married women ‘more tenderly’ than others and, in Credit Lyonnais v Burch,42 there was said to be significant scope for excessive influence by the owner of a small company over a junior employee.