Beth Holden reports on Purrunsing & the extent of a seller’s solicitor’s duty to the buyer in a property transaction
The recent decision of Mr Justice Pelling in Purrunsing v A’Court & Co and House Owners Conveyancers Limited [2016] EWHC 789 (Ch), has generated much interest, and alarm, about the extent of a solicitor’s duty to the purchaser of property. Purrunsing is the first authority to address the vendor’s conveyancers’ liability, and to examine the court’s power to grant relief under s 61 of the Trustee Act 1925 (TA 1925) when the purchaser’s money is away in breach of trust (Steven O’Sullivan considers some of the more controversial aspects of the judgment here).
Anthony Gold recovered the entire trust fund for the successful claimant from both the fraudster’s solicitors, A’Court, and the claimant’s own licensed conveyancers, House Owners Conveyancers Ltd (HOC). The court refused to relieve either of their strict obligation to reconstitute the trust of the claimant’s money, and found HOC negligent.
In October 2012 Mr Purrunsing paid over £470,000 to HOC
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=77dbbdb7_1)
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=b3bea7f_1)
