Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Surety Wives in the House of Lords: Time forSolicitors to `Get Real'?Royal Bank of Scotland plc v. Etridge (No. 2) [2001] 4 All E.R. 449

  • Case Law Studies
  • Published:
Feminist Legal Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This note considers the recent House of Lordsdecision in Royal Bank of Scotland plc. v.Etridge (No. 2). It concerns the familiarscenario of a wife jointly mortgaging (orproviding a guarantee for a mortgage of) thefamily home in order to secure financialsupport for a business run by her husband. Ina landmark judgement, Lord Nicholls set out newand specific procedures to be followed bylenders and solicitors who are providingindependent advice, in order to counter anyargument by the wife that the charge should beset aside because her signature on the lender'scharge has been obtained by the undue influenceof her husband. This note considers the impactof the decision upon the parties involved insuch transactions. Special consideration isgiven to the surety wife and her chances ofdefending possession proceedings brought bylenders in the post Etridge era.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

REFERENCES

  • Council of Mortgage Lenders, Lenders' Handbook for England and Wales, 2nd edn (London: Council of Mortgage Lenders, October 2002).

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of Mortgage Lenders, The Mortgage Code, 2nd edn (London: Council of Mortgage Lenders, reprinted April 2001).

    Google Scholar 

  • Federation of Small Businesses, “Finance for Small Business Growth” (Federation of Small Businesses, April 2002, see website: http://www.fsb.org.uk/).

  • Fehlberg, B., “The Husband, the Bank, the Wife and her Signature-the Sequel”, Modern Law Review 59 (1996), 67–694.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giliker, P., “Barclays Bank v. O'Brien Revisited:What a Difference Five Years Can Make”, Modern Law Review 62 (1999), 60–613.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, D., “Wives are Told: Don't Blame the Bank, Sue Your Solicitor”, Feminist Legal Studies 7 (1999), 19–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • O'Hagan, P., “Legal Advice and Undue Influence: Advice for Lawyers”, Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly 47 (1996), 7–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pawlowski, M. and Greer, S., “Constructive Notice and Independent Legal Advice: A Study of Lending Institution Practice”, Conveyancer 65 (2001), 22–248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Price, N.S., “Undue Influence: Finis Litium?”, Law Quarterly Review 115 (1999), –11.

    Google Scholar 

  • The British Bankers' Association, The Building Societies Association and the Association for Payment Clearing Services, The Banking Code (London, January 2001).

  • The British Bankers' Association and Association for Payment Clearing Services, The Business Banking Code (London, March 2002).

  • Thompson, M.P., “Redefining O'Brien”, Conveyancer 63 (1999), 12–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wong, S., “No Man Can Serve Two Masters: Independent Legal Advice and Solicitor's Duty of Confidentiality”, Conveyancer 62 (1998), 45–465.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Debra Morris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Morris, D. Surety Wives in the House of Lords: Time forSolicitors to `Get Real'?Royal Bank of Scotland plc v. Etridge (No. 2) [2001] 4 All E.R. 449. Feminist Legal Studies 11, 57–69 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023203713984

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023203713984

Search

Navigation