The respondents resisted an application for possession of their property by the bank. They claimed undue influence, and that because of an inability to speak English, the charge should be avoided. They appealed an order striking out their defence including inter alia that the solicitor had not been acting for them, and that accordingly they had not had independent advice.
Held: The issue as to whether the solicitor was acting for the appellants was a proper issue requiring decision by the courts. The bank knew, or should have known of the potential language difficulties, and ensured that appropriate arrangements were made. The matter should be remitted for trial.
Judges:
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead Lord Hoffmann Lord Hope of Craighead Lord Scott of Foscote Lord Rodger of Earlsferry
Citations:
[2002] UKHL 9, [2002] 1 FLR 735, [2002] NPC 33, [2002] 2 P and CR DG3
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Banking, Land
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167980
