header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
27 May 2016 / Steven O'Sullivan
Issue: 7700 / Categories: Features , Property
printer mail-detail

A missed opportunity?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

The controversial judgment in Purrunsing deserves an airing in the Court of Appeal, says Steven O’Sullivan

To what extent do seller’s solicitors owe a duty to the buyer in a property transaction? None, you might say, and you would be right, at least in the strict sense of the law of tort. This much was confirmed in the case of Gran Gelato v Richcliff [1992] Ch 560, [1992] 1 All ER 865.

So, if a purchaser is misled by a seller’s solicitor, does it follow that his only recourse is against the seller and there is no recourse against the seller’s solicitors? Not quite. There is long established case-law relating to breach of warranty of authority, but recent cases have sought to confine this to quite specific representations by the seller’s solicitor. However, there is another way for a purchaser to succeed.

Last month HHJ Pelling QC, sitting as a judge of the High Court handed down judgment in Purrunsing v A’Court & Co and House Owners Conveyancers Limited [2016] EWHC 789 (Ch), [2016] All ER

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll