In seven pages this paper discusses the impact of this 1994 case on English law cases that came thereafter in terms of married women's special protection equity. Eight sources are listed in the bibliography.
Name of Research Paper File: TS14_TEwifepr.rtf
Unformatted Sample Text from the Research Paper:
180 . This was a landmark case that increased the protection afforded by equity for married women, which has subsequently been developed. We may argue that this is a deserved
and necessary protection if the law is to be just, however, it is also narrow in its approach. The protection may be seen as needed, as in todays society the
more common scenario is for the male to be the individual that is seeking to use the home for security for business debts (Clements, 1995). When there is a
scenario of a business needing security it is not uncommon for charges to be taken on the property of a third party, this may be one of the directors or
a close family member. It had already been established in case law; Avon Finance Co. Ltd. v. Bridger [1985] 2 All E.R. 281, that relations may not be bound by
similar circumstances (Clements, 1995). However, the situation was not clear when cases such Coldunell Ltd v Gallon [1986] QB 1184, were considered, in this case elderly parents failed to save
the home their son had used as surety (Clements, 1995, Gravells, 1995). However, the majority of cases impact on women in matrimonial relationships. However, it may be argued that in
giving women this protection there is a bias, for example other business partners that are asked to sign documents may have a very similar case, yet are not allowed to
make any claims to protect their interest or property. However, when we look at this we may also argue that the wife is in the weak equable position, and as
such the protection is needed. To understand this we need to look at the case of Barclays Bank PLC v OBrien. This was a case where the husband had