Abstract
In One Savings Bank plc v Waller-Edwards the Court of Appeal advanced a test to be applied to determine whether the lender is put on inquiry in a secured lending “hybrid” transaction where the relationship between the two borrowers is non-commercial. This article argues that there are problems with the test advanced by the Court of Appeal and that a preferred test is discoverable in the judgment of the House of Lords in Royal Bank of Scotland plc v Etridge.
The article interrogates the approach of the Court of Appeal to this issue in One Savings Bank plc v Waller-Edwards (2024) and argues that the Court of Appeal's approach is not in line with the principles outlined and applied by the House of Lords in the landmark case of Royal Bank of Scotland v Etridge (No 2) (2001). The paper argues for an alternative approach which, it is contended, is more closely aligned to the principles and policy objectives articulated in Etridge and which would provide better protection for victims of undue influence in this context.
The article interrogates the approach of the Court of Appeal to this issue in One Savings Bank plc v Waller-Edwards (2024) and argues that the Court of Appeal's approach is not in line with the principles outlined and applied by the House of Lords in the landmark case of Royal Bank of Scotland v Etridge (No 2) (2001). The paper argues for an alternative approach which, it is contended, is more closely aligned to the principles and policy objectives articulated in Etridge and which would provide better protection for victims of undue influence in this context.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 93-97 |
| Number of pages | 5 |
| Journal | International Banking and Financial Law |
| Volume | 40 |
| Issue number | 2 |
| Publication status | Published - 9 Feb 2025 |
Keywords
- secured lending
- joint borrowing
- undue influence
- hybrid transaction
- lender put on inquiry
- banking and finance
- protection of wives
- non-commercial relationships