W, an equal shareholder with her husband and secretary of company was asked by him to sign an unlimited guarantee and charge when the company’s bank account moved between branches. She was not given independent advice and took no real part in the company.
Held: Undue influence by the husband had been established, and the bank was fixed with notice. The equal shareholding was no complete answer to her claim of manifest disadvantage in the transaction. The bank knew that she took no practical part in the business, and that was enough to put them on enquiry.
John Jarvis QC J
Gazette 10-Feb-1999,  2 All ER 707, Independent 08-Feb-1999
Undue Influence, Banking
Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.78153