Under Etridge lenders will only be put on inquiry if they are aware of the relationship between the principal debtor and the surety. Whereas prior to Etridge, a wife could raise a presumption against her husband that UI had been used simply by establishing the requisite relationship between them, there is now the additional requirement that the transaction she guaranteed was also of a type involving some manifest disadvantage to her. However I prefer to express no view on the position of the National Westminster Bank or any priority it might enjoy had it been appropriate to grant the Wife the remedy sought against Dunbar Bank. One might argue that the cost of confirming, or otherwise, a womans interests during a separate individual interview may appear to be a fair consideration for an irreproachable transaction. The short-term nature of the loan was confirmed in a subsequent letter of 3rd February 1992 from the Bank to Mr Nadeem in which the Bank stated: All negotiations were conducted between Mr Nadeem and the Bank. 2. Logically the cross-appeal must be considered first. The Bank was at all times anxious to be repaid its 260,000 out of the proceeds of a sale or re-mortgage of the property and evinced a willingness to discharge its security upon having repayment of that sum with interest. The claimant owned a house next to the defendant who was a housing developer. In my judgment it could never have enforced the Legal Charge according to its terms against either Mr or Mrs Nadeem and, to be fair, it has never sought to do so. The facility letter is dated 28th February 1991. Sometime before completion the Bank learned that National Westminster Plc was proposing to take a second charge over the new lease. At most, she would have understood that the document was something to do with the house.". At first Mrs Nadeem was not involved in the transaction at all. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. In answer to Mrs Nadeems cross-appeal, the Bank seeks to confirm the condition which the Judge imposed. In spite of this, such has not been implemented with banks instead following the current Banking Code of Banking Practice, requiring the surety to obtain independent legal advice. And it is that, in my opinion, of which she must make counter restitution. LORD JUSTICE POTTER: I agree that the cross-appeal of the Bank should be allowed in this case on the basis that the plaintiff could not establish her plea of undue influence by demonstrating manifest disadvantage as required in.