The wife of a borrower sought to defend a claim for possession of the property by the chargor. She claimed that he signature had been obtained by an equitable fraud.
Held: Undue influence occurred when improper means of persuasion were used to procure the complainant’s consent such that the consent ought not fairly to be treated as the expression of the complainant’s free will. Equity proceeded on the basis that there was no consent. Such would be enough to set aside the transaction as against the wrongdoer, and the lender was fixed with notice of that right. There was no need for the wife to establish that but for the trick, she would not have signed.
Lord Justice Peter Gibson
Times 27-May-2002, Gazette 13-Jun-2002,  EWCA Civ 555
England and Wales
Cited – CIBC Mortgages Plc v Pitt and Another HL 21-Oct-1993
Mrs Pitt resisted an order for possession of the house saying that she had signed the mortgage only after misrepresentations by and the undue infuence of her husband who was acting as the bank’s agent.
Held: A bank was not put on enquiry as to . .
Cited – Downs v Chappell; Downs v Stephenson Smart (a Firm) CA 1996
The plaintiff purchased a book shop. He claimed that in doing so he had relied upon the accounts prepared and signed off by the respective defendants.
Held: The judge had been wrong by testing what would have been the true figures as against . .
Cited – Yorkshire Bank Plc v Tinsley CA 25-Jun-2004
The defendant’s husband had charged the matrimonial home on several occasions to the claimant. It was found that the first charges were affected by undue influence and could not be enforced. The defendant argued that the last charge which replaced . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 March 2021; Ref: scu.170225