Home Page > Property Law Library > Mortgages > Undue influence

Home Page
Editorial Team

Negligence and loans
Charging orders
Facility agreement
Limitation and shortfall
Mortgage possession
Duties on sale
Solicitor's breach of trust and negligence
Tenants of mortgagees
Undue influence

Current page

Undue influence

This page deals with:
  • Royal Bank of Scotland v Etridge - the leading HL of decision in this area of the law.
  • A large number of post Etridge cases including ...
  • Yorkshire Bank plc v Tinsley - which dealt with the situation of whether a lender was necessarily bound by the constructive notice of undue influence in respect of mortgages A and B when it obtained, ostensibly properly, a replacement mortgage C.
  • First National Bank v Achampong where, although the charge was ineffective as against the wife because of undue influence it did create an equitable charge over the husband's interest which led to the bank obtaining an order for sale to get at his interest.

Royal Bank of Scotland v Etridge

Royal Bank of Scotland v Etridge (No 2)
[2001] UKHL 43

The decision of the House of Lords in Royal Bank of Scotland v Etridge (No 2), given on 11 October 2001, is now the leading case in this area of the law. The object of the decision, as stated by their Lordships, was to clarify the law and to make plain to banks, in a clear and simple way, what they should do to avoid problems in the future. However, in the Weekly Law Reports version, the decision runs to 95 pages. The leading judgment is given by Lord Nicholls (22 pages). Substantial speeches were also made by Lord Hobhouse (17 pages) and Lord Scott (47) even though the latter was in "full agreement with the analysis of the applicable principles of the law and with the conclusions expressed in the opinion of my noble and learned friend, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead". Perhaps a certain level of irritation may be detected in the (short) speech of Lord Bingham who said: "While the opinion of Lord Nicholls and Lord Scott show some difference of expression and approach, I do not myself discern any significant difference of legal principle applicable to these cases, and I agree with both opinions. But if I am wrong and such differences exist, it is plain that the opinion of Lord Nicholls commands the unqualified support of all members of the House."

Our own bullet points are set out below. Citations are from the speech of Lord Nicholls. If you have the energy to read the case you may find others:

Undue influence
  • Whether a transaction is brought about by the exercis ... THIS IS AN EXTRACT OF THE FULL TEXT. TO GET THE FULL TEXT, SEE BELOW

    Existing members, to login click => here
    If you would like to subscribe to the full monthly update please click below.

    Monthly Updates From £207 + VAT (1 year)
    (Free for charities and students)