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

42BR Barristers—4 Brick Court

42BR Barristers—4 Brick Court

42BR Barristers to be joined by leading family law set, 4 Brick Court, this summer

Winckworth Sherwood—Rubianka Winspear

Winckworth Sherwood—Rubianka Winspear

Real estate and construction energy offering boosted by partner hire

Gateley Legal—Daniel Walsh

Gateley Legal—Daniel Walsh

Firm bolsters real estate team with partner hire in Birmingham

NEWS
A wave of housing and procedural reforms is set to test the limits of tribunal capacity. In his latest Civil Way column for NLJ this week, Stephen Gold charts sweeping change as the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 begins biting
Plans to reduce jury trials risk missing the real problem in the criminal justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, David Wolchover of Ridgeway Chambers argues the crown court backlog is fuelled not by juries but weak cases slipping through a flawed ‘50%’ prosecution test
Emerging technologies may soon transform how courts determine truth in deeply personal disputes. In this week's NLJ, Madhavi Kabra of 1 Hare Court and Harry Lambert of Outer Temple Chambers explore how neurotechnology could reshape family law
A controversial protest case has reignited debate over the limits of free expression. In NLJ this week, Nicholas Dobson examines a Quran-burning incident testing public order law
The courts have drawn a firm line under attempts to extend arbitration appeals. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed of the University of Leicester highlights that if the High Court refuses permission under s 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996, that is the end
back-to-top-scroll