Lee was employed by the bus company in a position which involved receiving money on their behalf. The bus company required him to obtain a fidelity bond from a third party. The bond was given by Holloway, a relative of Lee, without either the bus company or Lee disclosing the fact that Lee had previously misappropriated money due to the bus company. The bus company then sued Holloway to recover further sums misappropriated by Lee. The court considered the nature of a surety’s contract. It discussed the case of Hamilton v Watson: ‘Lord Campbell, it is true, takes as his example of what might not be naturally expected an unusual contract between creditor and debtor whose debt the surety guarantees, but I take it this is only an example of the general proposition that a creditor must reveal to the surety every fact which under the circumstances the surety would expect not to exist, for the omission to mention that such a fact does exist is an implied representation that it does not.’
Vaughan Williams LJ
 2 KB 72
England and Wales
Cited – Hamilton v Watson 1845
Although a would-be surety is, in general, expected to acquaint himself with the risk he is undertaking, the creditor is under an obligation to disclose to the intending surety ‘anything which might not naturally be expected to take place between . .
(1845) 12 Cl and F 109
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 . .
Times 17-Oct-01,  UKHL 44,  3 WLR 1021,  2 AC 773,  HLR 4,  1 Lloyd’s Rep 343,  NPC 147,  Fam Law 880,  43 EGCS 184,  2 All ER (Comm) 1061,  4 All ER 449,  2 FLR 1364,  1 P and CR DG14,  3 FCR 481
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 December 2020; Ref: scu.224826