Leggatt & Anor v National Westminster Bank [2000] EWCA Civ 261 (19 October 2000)

Leggatt & Anor v National Westminster Bank [2000] EWCA Civ 261 (19 October 2000)

The 1990 Charge was not manifestly disadvantageous to Mrs Leggatt because it replaced an existing valid security (the 1972 Charge) and was necessary to preserve the Partnership business and her home; the Bank was not put on inquiry and had no constructive notice of undue influence or misrepresentation, and any inaccuracy in the instructions to solicitors was immaterial as Mrs Leggatt would have signed the charge in any event.

Citation
[2000] EWCA Civ 261
Parties
Appellant/second Defendant: Mrs Barbara Ann Leggatt; Respondent/claimant: National Westminster Bank plc; First Defendant: Mr Brian Leggatt
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 October 2000
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Order for Possession
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Undue Influence, Constructive Notice, Security for Debts, Manifest Disadvantage, Independent Legal Advice
Equity Banking Law Property Law Undue Influence Constructive Notice Security for Debts Manifest Disadvantage Independent Legal Advice

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Barbara Ann Leggatt

Appellant/second Defendant

National Westminster Bank plc

Respondent/claimant

Mr Brian Leggatt

First Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Order for Possession

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1990 Charge was manifestly disadvantageous to Mrs Leggatt
  2. 2 Whether the Bank had constructive notice of undue influence or misrepresentation
  3. 3 Whether the Bank could rely on independent legal advice given to Mrs Leggatt to defeat constructive notice

Ratio Decidendi

The 1990 Charge was not manifestly disadvantageous to Mrs Leggatt because it replaced an existing valid security (the 1972 Charge) and was necessary to preserve the Partnership business and her home; the Bank was not put on inquiry and had no constructive notice of undue influence or misrepresentation, and any inaccuracy in the instructions to solicitors was immaterial as Mrs Leggatt would have signed the charge in any event.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Order for possession affirmed
  • Detailed assessment of costs ordered