Report comment

Please fill in the form to report an unsuitable comment. Please state which comment is of concern and why. It will be sent to our moderator for review.

Comment

Having read both judgments, it appears that Judge Pelling had formed a dim view of the professional competence of Murphy and Denslow, and by the time it came to the last sequence of events which caused the loss, he considered that their incompetence had become dishonest assistance. Lewison LJ's careful analysis observes that it is hard to believe that both men went from honest to dishonest overnight, and their final error - not checking what was due on the prior charge - was at worst reckless, not dishonest.

It is very much a case on its facts - and the bank's claim does come through as somewhat desperate - and the main lesson is that solicitors should not be too trusting of clients, even longstanding clients, and suspend their critical faculties simply because the client is long known. It should also be noted that the material events took place in the aftershock of Lehman Brothers' collapse, and fraud always becomes more tempting when markets dip unexpectedly, and profit expectations take a hammering.

Your details

Cancel