Re Lloyds Bank Ltd Bomze and Lederman v Bomze
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1931 |
| Year | 1931 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
13 cases
- Bank of Scotland v Bennett
-
Royal Bank of Scotland Plc v Etridge (No 2); Kenyon-Brown v Desmond Banks & Company (Undue Influence) (No 2); Bank of Scotland v Bennett; UCB Home Loans Corporation Ltd v Moore; National Westminster Bank Plc v Gill; Midland Bank Plc v Wallace; Barclays Bank Plc v Harris; Barclays Bank Plc v Coleman
...influence over his wife, or her confidence in him, 'it is not difficult for the wife to establish her title to relief': see In re Lloyds Bank Ltd, Bomze v Bomze [1931] 1 Ch 289, at p 302, per Maugham J. Independent advice 20 Proof that the complainant received advice from a third party bef......
-
Zamet v Hyman
...widow, uninfluenced by him" As regards married couples, I think as Mr Justice Maugham indicated in the case of In re ( Lloyds Bank 1931,1 Chancery, p. 289), that the apparent anomaly to which the Professor alludes is in some part at least due to the fact that the Courts do not normally inf......
- Yerkey v Jones
Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
-
Subject Index
...61 .................................146Lloyde v West Midlands Gas Board[1971] 1 WLR 749.......................... 228Lloyds Bank Ltd, Re [1931] 1 Ch 289........................................................ 225Lowery v R [1974] AC 85................... 202Mann v Carnell (1999) 201 CLR 1, ......
-
The Relevance of Reverence; Undue Influence Civilian Style
...Bank of Scotland v Etridge (No 2) [2002] 2 A.C. 773, para 19; the quotation is from In re Lloyds Bank Ltd; Bomze and Lederman v Bomze [1931] 1 Ch 289, 302 per Maugham J). 125. Royal Bank of Scotland v Etridge (No 2) [2002] 2 A.C. 773, para 18. 126. See R v Attorney-General for England and W......
-
Burden of Proof in Undue Influence: Common Law and Codes on Collision Course
...v Skinner [1887] LR 36 ChD 145.21 Beningfield v Baxter (1886) 12 App Cas 167; Ellis v Barker (1871) Ch App 104.22 Re Lloyds Bank Ltd [1931] 1 Ch 289. Cf. Zamet v Hyman [1961] 1 WLR 1442.23 Bank of Montreal v Stuart [1911] AC 120 at 126; Domenco v Domenco and Ignat (1963) 41 DLR (2d) 267.But......