Allcard vs Skinner
Reference : [1887] 36 Ch. D. 145
Jurisdiction : England
Plaintiff : Allcard
Defendant : Skinner
Facts :
Miss Allcard was about 35 years old when she felt a desire to devote her life to good works. She became associated with the Sisters of the Poor and, after a few years, became a professed member of that sisterhood, binding herself to observe the rules of poverty, chastity, and obedience. The rule regarding poverty required a member to surrender all her property either to her relatives, the poor, or to the sisterhood itself, and this process was not to be discussed with any outsider without the permission of the lady superior.
As a result, within a few days, she made a will, bequeathing all her property, which she had acquired from her family’s wealth, to the lady superior, Miss Skinner (D), as an act of obedience. Moreover, in the succeeding years, she made gifts totaling about 7,000 pounds to the same person.
However, after about eight years, she left the sisterhood. Immediately afterward, she revoked her will but waited an additional six years before commencing legal action to recover the money she had left with Miss Skinner (D).
Issues :
1. Was the claimant under undue influence when she made the gift?
2. Was the claim barred by laches and acquiescence?
Decision :
The Court of Appeal concluded that the gift was tainted by undue influence. They presumed this from the claimant’s relationship with the sisterhood, the defendant, and her confessor.
However, it was held that if she had sued to recover the amount of her gifts that had not been expended on the fulfillment of the sisterhood’s purposes at an earlier date, she would have succeeded on the ground of undue influence. Nevertheless, the claim was barred due to laches and acquiescence. The claimant’s delay, combined with evidence that she had considered reclaiming the gift but chose not to, demonstrated that she acquiesced to the defendant retaining the property. As a result, the claimant could not reclaim her gift. In this way, the maxim of equity, “Delay defeats equity,” applied here.
Relevant Principle :
1. Doctrine of Laches : The Doctrine of Laches is a legal principle that prevents a party from asserting a claim or right if they have unreasonably delayed in pursuing it, resulting in prejudice or harm to the opposing party.
2. Delay Defects Equity : The legal maxim Delay defeats equity means that if a person seeking equitable relief (such as an injunction or specific performance) unreasonably delays in bringing their claim, they may lose their right to that relief. Courts prioritize fairness and timeliness, so undue delay can bar a claim, especially if it harms the other party or makes it difficult to resolve the matter justly.
Relevant Law :
- The Contract Act, 1872
- Section : 16
Author :
1. Farah Arifin
Note: The Case Summary is a platform by the law students, for the law students. We aim to summarize the facts and decisions of various important cases in both Bangla and English with utmost caution. However, this platform is in no way a replacement for going through the complete judgements by the law students and we discourage any learner from relying on case summaries alone. Thank you
