ABSTRACT
We saw in Chapters 2 and 3 that a presumption of undue influence can only be rebutted by proof that the charge/guarantee was executed as a result of the free and informed exercise of the complainant’s will, usually as a result of the wife having received independent legal advice. In other words, the burden passes to the husband or, in the O’Brien-type situation, to the lender to show that it had taken reasonable steps to satisfy itself that the wife’s consent to the transaction had been properly obtained: Barclays Bank plc v Boulter [1999] 4 All ER 513 (HL); and Royal Bank of Scotland v Etridge (No 2) [2001] UKHL 44 (HL).
