National Westminster Bank plc v Morgan [1985] AC 686 (HL)

Facts

  • Mrs. Morgan sought to save her home and entered into a transaction with National Westminster Bank plc.
  • The bank required Mrs. Morgan to provide security as part of the agreement.
  • Mrs. Morgan did not receive independent legal advice before entering into this transaction.
  • The bank’s actions during the dealing were commercially acceptable and within standard banking practice.
  • There was no evidence of the bank exerting undue influence or establishing a relationship of trust and confidence with Mrs. Morgan.
  • The House of Lords reviewed previous decisions, such as Fry v Lane (1888) 40 Ch D 312, Cresswell v Potter [1978] 1 WLR 255, and Alec Lobb (Garages) Ltd v Total Oil (GB) Ltd [1985] 1 WLR 173.

Issues

  1. Whether the transaction could be set aside as an unconscionable bargain solely due to an inequality of bargaining power.
  2. Whether the bank's conduct amounted to wrongful or unfair behavior sufficient to engage the doctrine of unconscionable bargains.
  3. Whether the absence of independent legal advice rendered the transaction unconscionable.
  4. Whether a manifest disadvantage to Mrs. Morgan was present and recognized by the bank.
  5. Whether the bank had exerted undue influence over Mrs. Morgan.

Decision

  • The House of Lords held that mere inequality of bargaining power does not make a bargain unconscionable.
  • The transaction could not be set aside absent wrongful or unfair conduct by the bank.
  • The bank’s behavior was not found to be improper or unfair; there was no exploitation of a manifest disadvantage.
  • The lack of independent legal advice for Mrs. Morgan did not in itself render the transaction unconscionable.
  • The court rejected the claim of undue influence, finding no relationship of trust and confidence or improper influence by the bank.

Legal Principles

  • The doctrine of unconscionable bargains requires proof of wrongful or unfair conduct by the stronger party; mere inequality of bargaining power is insufficient.
  • A manifest disadvantage, clearly apparent to the stronger party, is required to invoke the doctrine.
  • The doctrines of undue influence and unconscionable bargains are distinct, the former focusing on improper influence and the latter on the exploitation of a special disadvantage.
  • The presence or absence of independent legal advice is a relevant but not determinative factor in assessing unconscionability.
  • The doctrine should not interfere with ordinary commercial transactions conducted in good faith.

Conclusion

The House of Lords clarified that an unconscionable bargain requires not just inequality of bargaining power, but demonstrable wrongful or unfair conduct by the stronger party. The decision affirms the doctrine's limited scope and distinguishes it from undue influence, ensuring that equity does not unduly interfere with normal commercial dealings.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal