Extending the Reach of the ‘ <i>Etridge</i>  Protocol’ to So‐called ‘Hybrid’ Scenarios:  <i>Waller‐Edwards</i>  v  <i>One Savings Bank Plc</i>

In Waller‐Edwards v One Savings Bank Plc , the Supreme Court addressed, for the first time, the significant question of whether banks were put on constructive notice of potential undue influence in so‐called ‘hybrid’ scenarios. ‘Hybrid’ scenarios are those in which loan monies are advanced to a couple partly for their joint benefit and partly for one partner's sole benefit. The Supreme Court unanimously held that operation of the well‐known Etridge Protocol does extend to these ‘hybrid’ or ‘mixed’ scenarios thus putting banks and other lenders on notice provided the transaction is non‐commercial in nature, and, on its face, there is more than a de minimis element of surety by one party for the debt of another that is not to that party's own financial advantage. In light of the growing cognisance and understanding of economic abuse in the domestic sphere, reflections are offered on the implications and limits of the Supreme Court judgment and its likely importance (or otherwise) in the development and redefinition of the relationship between lenders and victims of economic abuse.