Report comment

When you read the judgment it is difficult to imagine how the judge at first instance came to a decision that the solicitors had been dishonest. One fears that it was yet another case of a judge thinking "Oh look, there is a solicitor involved, he must be to blame".
The simple fact is that the bank's charge was not registered. Its charge therefore only operated in equity, and the solicitors acting for the company/borrower could only be liable if they knew that the funds were being dishonestly funnelled elsewhere to defeat the bank's equitable claim.
One wonders what the result would have been if, instead of paying the proceeds of sale to another (bogus) lender, whose charge was registered at the Land Registry, there had been no other charge, and they had paid the proceeds of sale to their client company who had said it would deal with the bank itself.
Sadly the solicitor who failed to register the banks charge had no answer to the claim against him, and his insurers are in the soup. Those insurers have even made matters worse by running this ill conceived third party claim.