000			01446cam a2200229 4500
001			WB3741-10
008			011101n2001 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u115432
245			_aMortgages and undue influence
260			_c2001
490			_aEstates Gazette _v[2001] 43 EG 184 (CS) (27/10/01)
520			_a"Royal Bank of Scotland v Etridge" HL 11 October 2001. Eight appeals were heard together by HL. These concerned an allegation by wife (W) that a purported charge over her joint interest in her home was unenforceable. W argued that the bank should have been aware that her signature would not have been obtained but for undue influence on the part of the principal debtor, W's husband. HL redefined the principles laid down in "Barclays Bank plc v O'Brien" laying down guidance for banks to follow when seeking surety including ensuring that wives are properly informed and the duty of care owed to wife by advising solicitor. View judgment available at http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200102/ldjudgmt/jd011011/etridg-1.htm
590			_aWB
650			_aMORTGAGES
650			_aUNDUE INFLUENCE
650			_aBARCLAYS BANK V O'BRIEN
650			_aLENDERS
650			_aROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND V ETRIDGE
690			_aMANAGEMENT-BUSINESS MANAGEMENT-FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
856			_uhttps://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200102/ldjudgmt/jd011011/etridg-1.htm
942			_n0
999			_c68746 _d68746