Welcome

Credit Lyonnais Bank Nederland NV v Burch [1997] 1 All ER 14...

ResourcesCredit Lyonnais Bank Nederland NV v Burch [1997] 1 All ER 14...

Facts

  • Ms. Burch was a junior employee at a small company.
  • She provided a personal guarantee and a second charge over her flat as security for her employer’s business overdraft.
  • The liability assumed was disproportionate to her financial means and employee status.
  • Upon the company’s default, the bank sought to enforce the guarantee.
  • The transaction was strikingly prejudicial to Ms. Burch given her role and resources.

Issues

  1. Whether the employer-employee relationship and the nature of the transaction raised a presumption of undue influence.
  2. Whether the bank, as a third party, had constructive notice of possible undue influence.
  3. Whether the bank took sufficient steps to rebut the presumption, particularly by ensuring independent legal advice was obtained.

Decision

  • The Court of Appeal found the transaction was so manifestly disadvantageous that it called for explanation.
  • The relationship of trust, reliance, and subordination between Ms. Burch and her employer established a presumption of undue influence.
  • The bank had constructive notice of the risk of undue influence due to the employment relationship and the transaction’s nature.
  • The bank failed to ensure Ms. Burch received independent legal advice, and did not rebut the presumption of undue influence.
  • The guarantee and charge were set aside and held unenforceable.
  • The doctrine of undue influence protects vulnerable parties where consent to a transaction is improperly obtained due to domination by another.
  • A relationship of trust and confidence, coupled with a manifestly disadvantageous transaction, can give rise to a presumption of undue influence.
  • A third party, such as a bank, with constructive notice of such circumstances has a duty to ensure the potentially influenced party receives informed, independent legal advice.
  • Manifest disadvantage, while not a strict requirement in every undue influence case, strongly reinforces the presumption, especially in non-domestic relationships.
  • Independent legal advice is essential to rebut the presumption; mere superficial confirmation of understanding is inadequate.
  • The case clarifies and distinguishes the application of undue influence principles from authorities such as National Westminster Bank plc v Morgan and Barclays Bank plc v O'Brien.

Conclusion

Credit Lyonnais Bank Nederland NV v Burch confirms that when an employer-employee relationship combined with a manifestly disadvantageous transaction raises a presumption of undue influence, third parties like banks must ensure informed, independent legal advice is provided or risk the transaction being set aside.

Assistant

Responses can be incorrect. Please double check.