Supreme Court decision important in assessment of loss in lenders’ claims for breach of trust

Print This Post

13 November 2014


Posted by Danielle Best, associate at Weightmans LLP

The decision of the Supreme Court handed down on 5 November 2014 is of great significance to the assessment of loss in lenders’ claims for breach of trust against solicitors and licensed conveyancers and is good news for those defending such claims.

In 2006, AIB Group plc (“the Bank”) agreed to lend £3.3m to Mr and Mrs Sondhi to be secured by way of a first charge over their home (“the Property”).  That sum was subsequently transmitted to Mark Redler & Co Solicitors (“Redler”) for the purpose of discharging a charge held over the Property by Barclays, paying the balance of the money to the Sondhis and obtaining a first charge over the Property.  In error, Redler remitted an amount to Barclays which was around £300,000 less than was required to redeem the first charge and remitted the balance to the Sondhis.  The Bank ultimately secured a second charge in respect of its debt whilst Barclays continued to hold a first charge which it agreed to limit to £273,777.42.  After the Sondhis defaulted on repayments the security was enforced.   The proceeds of sale were insufficient to meet the liability to the Bank which consequently received £273,777.42 less than it would have done had Redler fulfilled its instructions.

The Bank sought to recover the entire £3.3m from Redler, less the amount received on the sale of the Property, claiming breach of trust amongst other things.   Both the court at first instance and the Court of Appeal found that the relief to which the Bank was entitled was £273,777.42.

The Supreme Court has now unanimously agreed that the Bank is only entitled to recover from Redler the amount by which it has suffered loss as a result of the breach of trust, £273,777.42.  In doing so the Supreme Court rejected amongst other things the Bank’s attempt to make Redler “liable for the consequences of the hopeless inadequacy of the security accepted by [the Bank] before Redler’s involvement.”

This case will be of some comfort to solicitors and licensed conveyancers and their insurers when faced with claims of this nature going forward.  The decision makes it clear that they will not be liable to reconstitute an entire trust fund in similar circumstances and instead the courts will look at the losses actually suffered as a result of a breach of trust.



Associate News is provided by Legal Futures Associates.
Find out about becoming an Associate



Legal Futures Blog

Do not fear robot lawyers – fear robot clients

Pulat Yunusov

Tech is famous for its shorter and shorter hype cycles. Robot lawyers were all over the twitters only a few months ago and now people actually yell at you for even mentioning the thing. Of course, robot lawyers should not even have surfaced in the first place because no one is remotely close to building them. Lawyers should not fear for their livelihoods. But there is something that is much more important than robot lawyers. It’s robot clients. Or at least the proliferation of machines, automated transactions, and standardized processes where lawyers once controlled the terrain.

September 20th, 2016