Waller-Edwards v One Savings Bank PLC [2023] EWHC 2386 (Ch) (27 September 2023)

Waller-Edwards v One Savings Bank PLC [2023] EWHC 2386 (Ch) (27 September 2023)

Although the appellant's consent to the charge was procured by undue influence, the lender was not put on inquiry because, on the facts known to the lender, the remortgage was a joint transaction for the benefit of both defendants, and the element of suretyship was minor. The lender was not fixed with constructive notice of undue influence, and the solicitor's knowledge of the destination of funds could not be imputed to the lender as it was acquired in the course of acting for the borrowers, not the lender.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 2386 (Ch)
Parties
Appellant/second Defendant: Catherine Waller-Edwards; Respondent/claimant: One Savings Bank PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 September 2023
Procedural Posture
Chancery Appeal / Appeal From County Court Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Undue Influence, Constructive Notice, Imputed Knowledge, Mortgage Enforcement, Remortgage Transactions
Property Law Equity and Trusts Banking Law Undue Influence Constructive Notice Imputed Knowledge Mortgage Enforcement Remortgage Transactions

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Catherine Waller-Edwards

Appellant/second Defendant

One Savings Bank PLC

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Chancery Appeal / Appeal From County Court Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the lender was put on inquiry as to undue influence in the procurement of a mortgage charge
  2. 2 Whether the lender was fixed with constructive notice of undue influence under section 199(1)(ii)(b) Law of Property Act 1925

Ratio Decidendi

Although the appellant's consent to the charge was procured by undue influence, the lender was not put on inquiry because, on the facts known to the lender, the remortgage was a joint transaction for the benefit of both defendants, and the element of suretyship was minor. The lender was not fixed with constructive notice of undue influence, and the solicitor's knowledge of the destination of funds could not be imputed to the lender as it was acquired in the course of acting for the borrowers, not the lender.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Possession order in favour of the respondent
  • Money judgment for sums outstanding under the charge