Undue Influence - 1993

The case shown here are derived from the lawindexpro case law database. lawindexpro is a low cost case law database, with over 260,000 case listings, and over 200,000 links to full text judgments. The free service below shows the core information on the case, but is restricted in several ways. A small proportion of cases do allow access to the full lawindexpro information. These cases are selected at random, and may be different on your next visit. The active links through to lawindexpro are extremely powerful allowing full access to all linked cases.  

This page lists 3 cases, and was prepared on 28 October 2012.

Cheese -v- Thomas [1994] 1 WLR 129
24 Aug 1993 CA Lord Nicholls Vice Chancellor	Undue Influence, Equity	Casemap 1 Citers
	A transaction entered into was manifestly disadvantageous to him. After a finding of undue influence, losses on the sale of a property are to be shared by both parties, so as to restore the parties to their original positions as near as might be.

CIBC Mortgages Plc -v- Pitt and Another [1994] 1 AC 200; [1993] 3 WLR 802; [1993] 4 All ER 433; [1993] UKHL 7
21 Oct 1993 HL Lord Browne-Wilkinson	Undue Influence, Banking	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	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 the existence of undue influence only because a loan was to be made in joint names. It must have some actual notice of that undue influence. In cases of undue influence disadvantage is not a necessary ingredient of the cause of action. It is not essential that the transaction should be disadvantageous to the pressurised or influenced person in any way. A balance is to be found between the protection of a wife from improper pressure, and the need for banks to have predictable consequences of making secured loans. "What, then, was known to the plaintiff that could put it on inquiry so as to fix it with constructive notice? So far as the plaintiff was aware, the transaction consisted of a loan to husband and wife to finance the discharge of an existing mortgage on [the matrimonial home], and as to the balance to be applied in buying a holiday home. The loan was advanced to husband and wife jointly. There was nothing to indicate to the plaintiff that this was anything other than a normal advance to husband and wife for their joint benefit."
	Link[s] omitted

Barclays Bank Plc -v- O'Brien and Another [1993] 3 WLR 786; [1994] 1 AC 180; [1993] 4 All ER 417; [1993] UKHL 6
21 Oct 1993 HL Lord Templeman, Lord Lowry, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Slynn of Hadley and Lord Woolf	Undue Influence, Banking	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	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. Held: The charge was not to be enforced. The bank was under constructive notice, and ought to have known of the undue influence of the husband. The security was obtained by undue influence or misrepresentation. The House set a low level for the threshold which must be crossed before a bank is put on inquiry. Lord Browne-Wilkinson: 'Therefore in my judgment a creditor is put on inquiry when a wife offers to stand surety for her husband's debts by the combination of two factors: (a) the transaction is on its face not to the financial advantage of the wife; and (b) there is a substantial risk in transactions of that kind that, in procuring the wife to act as surety, the husband has committed a legal or equitable wrong that entitles the wife to set aside the transaction.' Unconscionable conduct is " some other legal wrong". "if the doctrine of notice is properly applied, there is no need for the introduction of a special equity in these types of cases. A wife who has been induced to stand as a surety for her husband's debts by his undue influence, misrepresentation or some other legal wrong has an equity as against him to set aside that transaction. Under the ordinary principles of equity, her right to set aside that transaction will be enforceable against third parties (e.g. against a creditor) if either the husband was acting as the third party's agent or the third party had actual or constructive notice of the facts giving rise to her equity. Although there may be cases where, without artificiality, it can properly be held that the husband was acting as the agent of the creditor in procuring the wife to stand as surety, such cases will be of very rare occurrence. The key to the problem is to identify the circumstances in which the creditor will be taken to have had notice of the wife's equity to set aside the transaction. The doctrine of notice lies at the heart of equity. Given that there are two innocent parties, each enjoying rights, the earlier right prevails against the later right if the acquirer of the later right knows of the earlier right (actual notice) or would have discovered it had he taken proper steps (constructive notice)."
	Link[s] omitted