The second defendant sought leave to appeal against a possession order obtained by the claimant. The loan obtained had been misapplied by the first defendant, her husband. She had been advised in the transaction by his partner in their solicitors’ firm.
Held: After a trial over several days, the judge had considered and rejected each of the second defendant’s defences. In a case of fraud, one or other of the claimant or the second defendant must lose out. Though the judge had found influence on the part of the husband, he had not found the manifest disadvantage to the second defendant required to found a claim of undue influnce. However following Stepsky, she had an arguable claim that the claimant was fixed with notice of the fraud perpetrated by its agents. Leave to appeal granted.
Judges:
Lord Justice Nourse, Lord Justice Evans
Citations:
[1997] EWCA Civ 2335
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Halifax Mortgage Services Ltd (Formerly BNP Mortgages Ltd) v Stepsky and Another CA 1-Dec-1995
The knowledge of a solicitor, acting for both the borrower and the lender, of the lay clients intentions as regards the future use of the loan, is not to be imputed to the lender, even though the solicitor acts for both parties, and is the lender’s . .
Cited – Barclays Bank Plc v O’Brien and Another HL 21-Oct-1993
The wife joined in a charge on the family home to secure her husband’s business borrowings. The husband was found to have misrepresented to her the effect of the deed, and the bank had been aware that she might be reluctant to sign the deed.
See also – In Re Melinek (A Bankrupt); Bristol & West Building Society v Alexander (The Trustee Of The Property of Back) (A Bankrupt); Melinek (A Bankrupt) ChD 10-Apr-1997
The applicants sought leave to proceed in actions against the defendants against whom bankruptcy proceedings were pending. Consent should have been obtained before proceedings were issued, but application was now made nunc pro tunc.
Held: The . .
Full Appeal – Scotlife Home Loans (No 2) Limited v Melinek and Melinek CA 16-Dec-1997
The claimant loaned money to the defendants. Mr M was a solicitor who, with his partner, perpetrated a fraud. Mrs M appealed an order for possession saying the claimant was fixed with notice of the fraud by the solicitors acting as its agent.
Cited by:
See also – In Re Melinek (A Bankrupt); Bristol & West Building Society v Alexander (The Trustee Of The Property of Back) (A Bankrupt); Melinek (A Bankrupt) ChD 10-Apr-1997
The applicants sought leave to proceed in actions against the defendants against whom bankruptcy proceedings were pending. Consent should have been obtained before proceedings were issued, but application was now made nunc pro tunc.
Held: The . .
Leave granted – Scotlife Home Loans (No 2) Limited v Melinek and Melinek CA 16-Dec-1997
The claimant loaned money to the defendants. Mr M was a solicitor who, with his partner, perpetrated a fraud. Mrs M appealed an order for possession saying the claimant was fixed with notice of the fraud by the solicitors acting as its agent.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Undue Influence, Banking
Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.142733
