Revisiting evidential presumptions of undue influence in Hong Kong

Abstract The usefulness of evidential presumptions in establishing undue influence in equity has long been debated. This article revisits this debate in the Hong Kong context, arguing evidential presumptions are, in essence, of little use in establishing undue influence because there is no necessary causation between evidential presumptions and the establishment of undue influence. This article examines the fiduciary and evidentiary nature of the evidential presumptions and compares them as tools with tests of establishing undue influence throughout judicial history. Social implications behind evidential presumptions have been considered, aiming to adopt a flexible approach based on the maxim of equity.