Report comment

The unfounded criticism of the judge results from the fact that, as the comments on here demonstrate, many solicitors simply do not understand the judgment. They think it has something to do with rhe vendor's solicitor owing a duty of care to the purchaser or (even more bizarelly) has some connection with the "nemo dat" rule.

As for expert guidance, anyone with experience of cases of this kind knows that the Court is not interested in allowing expert evidence in respect of conveyancing practice. There was certainly no need for such evidence here.