• UB v Roche and Buttimer: most recent case on this topic where it was held that to follow from the adoption of the test from Etridge that a bank would be placed on inquiry when faced with a request for guarantees from two business partners who were the principals and shareholders in a business whose debts were to be guaranteed and who were also, to the knowledge of the bank, same sex partners in the relationship sense of that term. There would be no particular reason why either one of them might not be said to be the one who might exercise UI or the other be the one who might be influenced. It follows that it would be necessary to ensure that both had independent legal advice. Ct further endorsed the criticism of UB v Fitzgerald. It was accepted that the general principle which underlies Etridge, is to the effect that a bank is placed on inquiry where it is aware of facts which suggest, or ought to suggest, that there may be a non-commercial element to a guarantee. That general principle, at a minimum, goes far enough to cover the facts of this case where the bank was, for reasons set out, aware of the personal relationship between the parties and the fact that the guarantor (girlfriend of the borrower) had no direct interest in the company (other than being a director) and was in a less secure position than a spouse or a civil partner who has at least certain potential legal rights in the assets or income of the other spouse or partner. Ct was careful to note that it was not endorsing the full rigours of Etridge in Ireland.