Avon Finance Co Ltd v Bridger [1985] 2 All ER 281
Deeds; meaning of plea; undue influence
(292 words)
Facts
The Bridgers were an elderly couple. They bought a house with their son’s help who was a chartered accountant. The son made arrangements for a building society mortgage as well as a loan from licensed moneylender Avon Finance to facilitate the payment of the purchase price. The son agreed to make sure that the couple would execute a second charge on the house to Avon Finance, which the couple did after consulting Avon Finance’s solicitors. The solicitors told the couple that further documents had to be signed that related to the building society mortgage. Subsequently, the couple’s son vanished and left his parents with the loan.
Issues
Avon Finance was unsuccessful in trying to obtain the sums and possession of the house from the Bridger couple. The judge held that despite Avon Finance’s and their solicitors’ good faith, the Bridgers established non est factum – i.e. they established that the agreement was fundamentally different from what they meant to sign – and could thus escape from the performance of the agreement. Avon Finance appealed.
Decision/Outcome
The Court rejected the lower court’s acceptance of non est factum, explaining that the Bridger couple had not acted with reasonable care. However, the couple left things to be arranged by their son which, based on three considerations, led to an equity that rendered the transaction voidable. First, it was Avon Finance that entrusted the son with the procurement of the transaction. Secondly, as Avon Finance was aware, there was a close, parent-child relationship involved. Thirdly, the Bridgers did not receive independent legal advice. Based on these considerations, the son exercised undue influence on his parents solely for his own and Avon Finance’s benefit. The parties’ bargaining power also lacked equality. So the appeal had to be dismissed.
Updated 19 March 2026
This case summary remains broadly accurate as a description of Avon Finance Co Ltd v Bridger [1985] 2 All ER 281. The decision is still a recognised authority in English contract law on the doctrines of non est factum and undue influence, particularly in the context of third-party undue influence and the circumstances in which a creditor may be affected by it.
Readers should note, however, that the law on undue influence and third-party notice has developed significantly since this case. The leading modern authority is now Royal Bank of Scotland v Etridge (No 2) [2001] UKHL 44, in which the House of Lords comprehensively restated the principles governing undue influence, the notice required of a lender, and the steps a lender must take (such as ensuring independent legal advice) to avoid being affected by a surety’s equity. Avon Finance v Bridger is sometimes cited as a precursor to Etridge, but students should treat Etridge as the primary statement of current law in this area. The article’s summary of the three considerations identified by the Court of Appeal remains consistent with the broader framework later consolidated in Etridge.
The article’s brief reference to inequality of bargaining power should be read with care: that concept, associated with Lord Denning’s approach in cases such as Lloyds Bank v Bundy [1975] QB 326, has not been adopted as a freestanding doctrine in English law, and the outcome in Avon Finance is better understood through the lens of undue influence and constructive notice rather than any general inequality of bargaining power principle.
