Search results
Royal Bank of Scotland Plc v Etridge (No. 2) [2002] UKHL 44. Undue influence; married couple; notice of risk; protection of wife and lender. Facts. The case concerned eight joined appeals in which homeowners had mortgaged their houses to secure loans used by the husbands for their respective businesses. The wives had no direct benefit.
To clarify, the first presumption is the presumption of undue influence, the second presumption is the presumption of trust and confidence being reposed. The second presumption fulfils one of the two requirements to raise the first presumption.
Oct 11, 2001 · In Barclays Bank Plc v O'Brien [1994] 1 AC 180 your Lordships enunciated the principles applicable in this type of case. Since then, many cases have come before the courts, testing the implications of the O'Brien decision in a variety of different factual situations.
Royal Bank of Scotland plc v Etridge (No 2) [2001] UKHL 44 (11 October 2001) is a leading case relevant for English land law and English contract law on the circumstances under which actual and presumed undue influence can be argued to vitiate consent to a contract.
In Royal Bank of Scotland Plc v Etridge (No 2) [1998] 4 All ER 705, 715, para 19, the Court of Appeal set out its views of the duties of a solicitor in this context:
In October 1993 the bank made a formal demand for payment by the company of the sums it owed the bank and, on failing to receive payment, appointed receivers of the company. The sum owed by the company to the bank was £270,000 or thereabouts.
Royal Bank of Scotland v Etridge [1998] 4 All ER 705 House of Lords. The case concerned a number of conjoined appeals concerning banks seeking possession of homes where a wife had signed a charge or mortgage agreeing to secure the debts of the husband on the family home.
