Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T18:18:53.307Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Undue Influence and Substitute Mortgages

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2005

Nigel P. Gravells
Get access

Extract

One of the most litigated property law issues over the past decade has been the equitable jurisdiction to set aside a mortgage transaction procured by undue influence or some other vitiating conduct.

The most common scenario is where the complainant has executed a mortgage as co-mortgagor with the principal mortgagor or has otherwise postponed his or her interest in the mortgaged property in order to secure the debts of the principal mortgagor; and, by way of a defence to an action for possession by the mortgagee, the complainant seeks to have the transaction set aside on the ground that it was procured by vitiating conduct on the part of the principal mortgagor. Barclays Bank plc v. O'Brien [1994] A.C. 180 established the structure of the defence.

Type
Case and Comment
Information
The Cambridge Law Journal , Volume 64 , Issue 1 , 24 March 2005 , pp. 42 - 45
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge Law Journal and Contributors 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)