Report comment

Mr Balchin, as I recall the judgment Mishcons weren't negligent, and their liability was founded in breach of trust. I don't have a copy of Charlesworth (no longer being in practice) and am insufficiently familiar with s.61 to comment in any detail on how the court found it did not relieve Mishcon.

I agree with the general thrust of the comments that it is rather hard, with possibly damaging consequences, to hold the buyer's lawyers responsible (however the responsibility is dressed up) when the purported seller is a fraudster. As I recall also, the (supposed) seller's solicitors had inadequate and limited cover, with no other means (a small practice).

Possibly these and other facts drove the judge to determine that Mishcons, having the broadest shoulders, should be liable, and the justification in the judgment was created to buttress this conclusion (rather than analysis leading to a conclusion). My original point about this, in a different thread, is that there is a genuine legal point lurking under all the surprise and outrage, and if the Court of Appeal are so minded they could dismiss the appeal, with legal justification. If so, it should go to the Supreme Court.