header-logo header-logo

05 March 2014
Issue: 7597 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

PI premium rise concerns

Could Court of Appeal ruling hike PI premiums?

Lawyers fear professional indemnity premiums could be driven up following a much-anticipated decision on residential conveyancing fraud by the Court of Appeal.

Santander v RA Legal [2014] EWCA Civ 183 concerned a fraud in which the solicitors, Sovereign, which purported to act for the vendor of a property did not in fact act for the vendor. Although the owner was seeking to sell, she was completely unaware that her property had been “sold” on her behalf.

The defendant firm of solicitors, RA Legal, was entirely deceived by the fraud, but the transaction did not complete because the buyer paid £200,000 (£150,000 of which was a mortgage) without receiving genuine documents in return.

Mr Justice Smith held that RA Legal acted in breach of trust by releasing its client’s money but had nevertheless acted reasonably for the purposes of s 61 of the Trustee Act 1925 because its departures from best practice were not sufficiently connected with the buyer’s loss.

Therefore, the firm was not liable.

Overturning this, however, the Court of Appeal clarified that, for the purposes of s 61, sufficient connection with a beneficiary’s loss may be established if there is “some element of causative connection”. The connection falls short of “but for” causation, and simply requires that there be an element of the trustee’s behaviour which materially contributes to the beneficiary’s loss. Therefore, RA Legal was liable for the buyer’s loss as a result of minor errors it made.

According to a statement by Hailsham Chambers, whose Michael Pooles QC and Imran Benson acted for the respondent firm of solicitors, the ruling “draws residential conveyancing solicitors closer than ever before into the position of effectively guaranteeing their clients against the possibility of fraud by third parties. While this may be comforting for purchasers, the anticipated rise in professional indemnity premiums is likely to push up conveyancing fees”.

 

Issue: 7597 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll