CIBC Mortgages v Pitt [1994]

Facts

  • A wife was pressured by her husband into signing a mortgage of £150,000 to fund his stocks and shares trading
  • The loan was said to be for the purchase of a holiday home
  • Initially, the husband became a millionnaire on paper, though he never chased in his shares, instead buying more.
  • In 1987, with the stock market crash, the husband lost everything and the bank sought to repossess the house

Issue

Decision

  • Yes, no repossession

Reasoning

  • Manifest disadvantage does not apply in the case of actual undue influence, it only applies in presumed undue influence cases
  • As such, the bank not being put on notice was irrelevant to the outcome
  • A mortgagee is entitled to take a mortgage agreement at face face value in deciding whether presumed undue influence may exist
RELATED CASE  Hammond v Osborn [2002]

Posted in Contract Law Revision Notes.

This page was last updated on 28th April 2015

© 2020 Webstroke Law - Terms