Where a wife executed a charge over a jointly owned property to secure her joint debts, and then seventeen years later executed a replacement charge to secure borrowings of the husband and she had received independent advice, she could not assert that the bank was fixed with notice of the undue influence of her husband. In any event the new charge was not on its face disadvantageous to her. If the new charge had not been executed the business would have failed, and she would have been caught by the earlier charge in any event.
Citations:
Times 16-Nov-2000, Gazette 02-Nov-2000, [2001] 1 FLR 563, [2000] EWCA Civ 261
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – UCB Group Ltd v Hedworth CA 4-Dec-2003
The defendant challenged the claimant’s right to possession under a legal charge. She appealed a finding that she had not established the undue influence of her husband, a solicitor.
Held: A lender who received a voidable security was entitled . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Banking, Undue Influence
Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135697