A charge to secure a husband’s borrowings was enforceable where the wife’s signature had been taken before a solicitor who had explained it. Hobhouse LJ (dissenting) ‘It must be remembered that the starting point of this exercise is that the wife’s will is being unduly and improperly influenced by the will of her husband. The steps taken have to be directed to freeing her of that influence or, at the least, providing some counterbalance.’
Judges:
Hobhouse LJ
Citations:
Times 19-Dec-1994, [1995] 1 All ER 936
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Royal Bank of Scotland v Etridge (No 2); Barclays Bank plc v Harris; Midland Bank plc v Wallace, etc HL 11-Oct-2001
Wives had charged the family homes to secure their husband’s business borrowings, and now resisted possession orders, claiming undue influence.
Held: Undue influence is an equitable protection created to undo the effect of excess influence of . .
Cited – Governor and Company of Bank of Scotland v Bennett and Another ChD 1997
Mrs Bennett defended the bank’s claim for possession of the matrimonial home charged to the bank to secure her husband’s borrowings. She said that her signature, both to the guarantee and to the legal charge, had been procured by her husband’s undue . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Banking
Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.78127