© 2025 News On The Block. All rights reserved.
News on the Block is a trading name of Premier Property Media Ltd.
© 2025 News On The Block. All rights reserved.
News on the Block is a trading name of Premier Property Media Ltd.
The Supreme Court today handed down a landmark judgment in a case of alleged mortgage coercion, ruling that One Savings Bank PLC had a duty to investigate whether a woman was under undue influence from her partner when she took out a mortgage partly used to pay his debts.
In a unanimous decision, the Court found that the bank should have carried out checks to determine if Catherine Waller-Edwards was being coerced by her partner, Nicholas Bishop, particularly as the mortgage did not provide her with a direct financial benefit.
The ruling is expected to have wide-reaching implications for lenders, and potentially for mortgage brokers and other financial professionals involved in loan arrangements.
Jennifer Richardson, Financial Crime Partner at law firm Blackfords LLP, commented:
“This significantly increases the liability on lenders to undertake checks in respect of those it is lending to, however the decision also raises a lot of questions about how this will be applied in the case of mortgage brokers for example. Will this liability extend to them as well? Should this lead to a more stringent regulatory regime?
Solicitors for example are often expected to identify similar situations when dealing with clients, and face regulatory investigations by the SRA if they fail to do so. It may be that we see a similar tightening of regulation amongst lenders as a result of this case.”
The decision signals a potential shift in how financial institutions are expected to assess vulnerability and influence in lending scenarios, and may prompt regulatory reviews across the mortgage and lending sector.