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

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
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
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll