The bank sought to enforce guarantees supported by a charge on the defendants home. They said that the bank had by its actions in supporting further development of a project, released them from obligations to it.
Held: David Richards J analysed the difference between inadvertent failure to disclose and a deliberate suppression of information, in the context of a confidential husband and wife relationship: ‘Mis-stating the position or misleading the wife is different from an inadvertent failure to disclose, a distinction familiar in the law of misrepresentation. Of course a statement which, though strictly true, is misleading without qualification will fall within these observations of Lord Nicholls. Likewise, a deliberate suppression of information because the husband knows that, if disclosed, it will deter the wife from giving the guarantee will involve an abuse by him of her confidence. It would be unconscionable and rightly categorised as unacceptable means.’
Judges:
Richards J
Citations:
[2010] 1 Lloyds Rep 677, [2010] EWHC 105 (Ch)
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Hewett v First Plus Financial Group Plc CA 24-Mar-2010
The appellant appealed against a mortgage possession order, saying that she had been misled into signing the charge by a non-disclosure by her husband of an extra-marital affair he was conducting. The bank had not met the standards set in Etridge, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Banking, Undue Influence
Updated: 27 September 2022; Ref: scu.396379