Report comment

There is a lot of unfounded criticism of the judge, and a failure to understand the reasoning.
Both solicitors were prima facile liable because, in breach of trust, they paid away the completion monies without ensuring completion took place. Having been found liable, (and indeed they admitted that they were liable) they then both tried to rely on S61 of the Trustee Act. As neither were dishonest they had to show they acted reasonably. Both failed to do so:-
the sellers solicitors had failed to carry out sufficient checks as to identity in circumstances where there was a high risk;
the buyers solicitor failed because having received unsatisfactory replies to questions he had raised as to the right for the fraudster to sell, he failed to pass on the unsatisfactory replies to his client and who could not therefore make an informed decision to proceed or not.

An appeal may follow from one of the solicitors but I can't see it succeeding.
I don't really see it is a landmark case. It merely applies principles already widely recognised and litigated in recent years.