header-logo header-logo

PI premium rise concerns

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

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
In NLJ this week, Bea Rossetto of the National Pro Bono Centre marks Pro Bono Week by urging lawyers to recognise the emotional toll of pro bono work
Can a lease legally last only days—or even hours? Professor Mark Pawlowski of the University of Greenwich explores the question in this week's NLJ
RFC Seraing v FIFA, in which the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) reaffirmed that awards by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) may be reviewed by EU courts on public-policy grounds, is under examination in this week's NLJ by Dr Estelle Ivanova of Valloni Attorneys at Law, Zurich
back-to-top-scroll