The claimant challenged being held liable for substantial borrowings made by her husband on their joint account. She originally agreed a limit of andpound;200,000, but the bank agreed to vary this with the husband to over 3 million pounds. She had signed a joint mandate.
Held: The wife had not known the full extent of the borrowings. It could not be inferred that an abuse of confidence had taken place. If the bank were authorised by the joint mandate to grant an implied request for a loan (tacit sole borrowing), then meeting an express request (sole facility borrowing) would also be authorised.
Judges:
Mr Justice Hart
Citations:
Gazette 03-Jul-2003, Times 16-May-2003, [2003] EWHC 986 (Ch)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appealed to – Sandra Estelle Fielding v The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc CA 11-Feb-2004
The husband and wife had signed a bank mandate allowing the bank to act upon the authorisation of either of them. The wife complained that the bank should not be able to recover from her any sums expended by the husband.
Held: The mandate . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Sandra Estelle Fielding v The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc CA 11-Feb-2004
The husband and wife had signed a bank mandate allowing the bank to act upon the authorisation of either of them. The wife complained that the bank should not be able to recover from her any sums expended by the husband.
Held: The mandate . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Banking
Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.184714
