Padden v Bevan Ashford Solicitors [2011] EWCA Civ 1616, [2012] All ER (D) 42 (Feb)
It was well established that, where a wife provided her interest in the family home, and often in other assets, to a bank as security for her husband’s liabilities, there was an obvious risk that she might subsequently allege that the security ought to be set aside because it had been obtained by her husband’s undue influence, of which the bank had had notice. In order to minimise the risk of such a claim being successfully advanced, a bank ought to ensure that the wife had had proper legal advice: that ought to significantly reduce the risk both of undue influence and, even more, of the bank being held to have had notice of any undue influence.
Although those principles were subject to the facts and circumstances of each particular case, they were a good guide to the appropriate approach where an individual, whether or not a wife, sought advice from a solicitor about an intended provision of significant security in a transaction, which, at least on the face of it, would
