← All Authorities
United Kingdom undue influenceguarantees and indemnities

National Westminster Bank plc v Morgan

[1985] AC 686
JurisdictionUnited Kingdom
CourtUK House of Lords
Year1985
StatusOverruled

Summary

Manifest disadvantage formerly required for undue influence claim against bank over mortgage; subsequently overruled in part by Royal Bank of Scotland v Etridge (No 2).

Key Principle

Undue influence by a bank: the House of Lords held that a wife's claim of undue influence over a mortgage required proof that the transaction was manifestly disadvantageous (subsequently modified in Royal Bank of Scotland v Etridge).

Area of Law

banking

Related Cases

Westpac Banking Corporation v Lenthall (2019) 272 CLR 1

A bank owes a duty of care to guarantors to take reasonable steps to ensure they understand the nature and effect of the guarantee under the Code of Banking Practice.

AUSTRAC v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2018] FCA 930

CBA liable for systemic AML/CTF Act contraventions including failure to report suspicious matters and threshold transactions via intelligent deposit machines, resulting in $700 million civil penalty.

Paciocco v ANZ Banking Group Ltd (Full Federal Court) (2015) 236 FCR 199

Full Federal Court held that bank late payment fees were not penalties or unconscionable under consumer protection law as they bore a genuine pre-estimate of loss or legitimate commercial interest.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of National Westminster Bank plc v Morgan and how it applies to your situation.

Explain National Westminster Bank plc ...