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

Kennedys—Milan Devani

Kennedys—Milan Devani

Chief information officer appointment strengthens technology leadership

Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

Firm strengthens Wilmslow team with two solicitor appointments

DWF—Ian Plumley

DWF—Ian Plumley

Londoninsurance and reinsurance practice announces partner appointment

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll