Report comment

Please fill in the form to report an unsuitable comment. Please state which comment is of concern and why. It will be sent to our moderator for review.

Comment

Yes, but Philip's argument is that Sanders had no obligation to perform any due diligence: they were not providing any legal services at all and were merely acting as a conduit for the money.

That is the point you need to grapple with if you want to make a successful claim against the fund. What services (of the kind usually provided by solicitors) were Sanders supposed to be providing? Where is the client care letter and what does it say Sanders were supposed to be doing? I know there was promotional material which indicated Sanders would somehow protect investors' interests, but that material did not emanate from Sanders.

Presumably, you current lawyers have explained that you need to put together some evidence which shows that Sanders agreed with you that they would provide some kind of legal service beyond acting as a channel for the money. Proving fraud is not in itself going to help you very much n terms of claiming on the Compensation Fund.

Read (on bailii) Halliwells v NES and the cases referred to in it. They relate to a similar (but not identical) point, which appears to be the point which the arbitrator decided in favour of Sanders' insurers.

Your details

Cancel