Report comment

After reading the judgement, the short position is that Solicitors acting for sellers are liable under the Code for Completion by Post under the undertaking to have the seller's authority to receive the purchase money on completion. 'Seller' was interpreted in the appeal judgement to mean the real owner. The most comprehensive ID checks won't in my view overcome the fact that the instructing 'seller' client may still be an impostor. We appear to be doomed; doomed!

As far as I gather from the judgement, Mishcon and MMS now have to sort out their contributions between them.

The CofA refused to grant Mishcon relief under S.61 so unless that's appealed, this is where the matter lies.

Unfortunately Lady Justice Gloster's that Mishcon should be granted relief wasn’t followed by the majority. Sensibly she also said in effect that Mischcon's insurance shouldn't prevent Mishcon being granted relief.

Buyer's Solicitors don’t appear to be a great deal better off following the judgement and sellers' Solicitors must now watch out.

If my conclusions are awry, I'm sure someone will correct me.