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 the earlier ones inherited that defect.
Held: The last mortgage was inseparably connected with the earlier mortgages and there was nothing to render the past abuse, which amounted to undue influence, and of which the Bank had constructive notice, inoperative in connection with the last mortgage. As a result, the mere fact that there was no new and additional inequity in relation to the 1994 mortgage was not determinative, for the inequity of the earlier transactions had not been cured.
Lord Justice Peter Gibson Lord Justice Rix Lord Justice Longmore
 EWCA Civ 816, Times 12-Aug-2004,  3 All ER 463,  1 WLR 2380
England and Wales
Cited – Alec Lobb (Garages) Ltd v Total Oil Ltd CA 1985
The court was asked whether the terms of a lease and lease back amounted to an unconscionable bargain and was unenforceable.
Held: The court affirmed the decision at first instance, but emphasised the need for unconscientious behaviour rather . .
Cited – Crowe v Ballard 1790
Crowe was the expectant heir to a legacy with a life tenant and in 1777 asked Ballard to sell his expectancy on his behalf. Ballard claimed to have sold to Toft for andpound;350, but had in fact bought the expectancy himself and advanced . .
Cited – UCB Corporate Services Limited v Williams CA 2-May-2002
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 . .
Cited – Kempson v Ashbee CA 1874
Ashbee lent money to Sladden (the stepfather) in 1857 taking a promissory note from Miss Kempson, the stepdaughter, to repay andpound;450 with interest. Miss Kempson was 20 at the time and living with Sladden and her mother; she had initially . .
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 . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 January 2021; Ref: scu.198408