Massey v Midland Bank Plc: CA 1995

Where a woman executes a mortgage charging her property in favour of the bank to secure her partner’s debts, the bank is fixed with notice of the possibility of undue influence. It was not necessary that the couple should be married or cohabit.
Steyn LJ
[1995] 1 All ER 929
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedRoyal 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 . .
ConsideredGovernor 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 02 June 2021; Ref: scu.224818