Anyone bored and want to read / give me their thoughts on a case:
HSBC Bank plc v Catherine Mary Brown [2015] EWHC 359 (Ch)
No doubt the judge was right to find that HSBC was fixed with constructive notice of undue influence, if undue influence there was. But on what possible basis did the judge conclude that there was any undue influence here? There is no evidence of it at all that I can see, the only comment the judge makes is (at para 55) that this was not one of those special relationships where there was an irrebuttable presumption of influence. I can't even see a finding of fact that there was undue influence exerted on Mrs Brown, and yet somehow HSBC's charge was held to be unenforceable?