Cornish v Midland Bank plc [1985] 3 All ER
Facts
The plaintiff’s husband made an application for a loan from the defendant bank, which the plaintiff consented to guarantee by signing a second mortgage on her property. The clerk employed by the defendant informed the plaintiff of the implications of doing so, but failed to explain adequately that the agreement meant she accepted liability for all her husband’s future borrowings in addition to the loan which he took out at the time.
Shortly afterwards the marriage broke down. The defendant was made aware of this, but continued to make loan payments to the husband. The husband defaulted on the repayments, causing the bank to redeem the mortgage. The plaintiff was left with very little money from the sale of the house, and brought a claim in negligence against the bank.
Issues
The issue was whether the bank owed any duty of care to the plaintiff in respect of: advising her of her liability for her husband’s future borrowings; ceasing loan payments to the husband once it became aware of the breakdown of the marriage.
Decision/Outcome
It was held that as the clerk had taken it upon himself to advise the plaintiff as to the implications of signing the agreement, a duty of care had been created to perform this task without negligence. The omission to mention the liability for future borrowing was negligent, and in breach of this duty. Moreover, it was foreseeable that the plaintiff would act in reliance on the advice given by the clerk.
Updated 19 March 2026
This case note accurately summarises the decision in Cornish v Midland Bank plc [1985] 3 All ER 513 (CA). The core legal principle remains good law: where a bank employee voluntarily undertakes to advise a third party (such as a guarantor) on the implications of a transaction, a duty of care in negligence may arise under the Hedley Byrne principle, and an inadequate explanation of the scope of liability can constitute a breach of that duty.
Readers should note, however, that the broader legal landscape governing undue influence and the obligations of banks towards guarantors has developed significantly since 1985, most notably through the House of Lords decision in Royal Bank of Scotland plc v Etridge (No 2) [2001] UKHL 44, [2002] 2 AC 773. Etridge established detailed practical guidelines for banks dealing with surety transactions, particularly where a sexual or emotional relationship exists between creditor and guarantor. Those guidelines now substantially govern how banks must conduct themselves in such situations. While Cornish remains a useful illustration of negligence liability arising from voluntary assumption of responsibility, students should treat it alongside Etridge and related authorities on undue influence and surety transactions rather than in isolation.
