Barclays Bank Plc v Coleman and Others: CA 5 Jan 2000

It is still the case that a claimant, arguing for a charge to be set aside for undue influence must show some manifest and clear disadvantage arising from the charge. This may be subject to change in the future, but still applies now. A document required to be executed before an independent solicitor, but witnessed by a legal executive with the authority of his solicitor employer was properly executed and counted as having been given under such independent advice.
Nourse LJ
Times 05-Jan-2000, Gazette 20-Jan-2000, [2001] QB 20
England and Wales
Citing:

Cited by:

  • Appeal from – 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 . .
    Times 17-Oct-01, [2001] UKHL 44, [2001] 3 WLR 1021, [2002] 2 AC 773, [2002] HLR 4, [2002] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 343, [2001] NPC 147, [2001] Fam Law 880, [2001] 43 EGCS 184, [2001] 2 All ER (Comm) 1061, [2001] 4 All ER 449, [2001] 2 FLR 1364, [2002] 1 P and CR DG14, [2001] 3 FCR 481

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 December 2020; Ref: scu.78195