Purrunsing v A'Court & Co (a firm) & Anor [2016] EWHC 789 (Ch) (14 April 2016)

Purrunsing v A'Court & Co (a firm) & Anor [2016] EWHC 789 (Ch) (14 April 2016)

Both ACC and HOC acted in breach of trust by releasing purchase monies without genuine completion. Neither defendant was entitled to relief under s.61 Trustee Act 1925 as they failed to act reasonably in the circumstances, particularly regarding due diligence and warning signs of fraud. HOC was also liable in contract and tort for failing to advise the claimant of unsatisfactory responses to due diligence enquiries, thereby exposing him to an undisclosed risk. Both defendants were ordered to contribute equally to the claimant's loss.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 789 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Hurry Narain Purrunsing; First Defendant: A'Court & Co (A Firm); Second Defendant: House Owners Conveyancers Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Breach of Trust, Contract, and Negligence / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed against both defendants for breach of trust; claim allowed against HOC for breach of contract and duty; both defendants denied relief under s.61 Trustee Act 1925; contribution ordered equally between defendants.
Legal Topics
Breach of Trust, Conveyancing Fraud, Money Laundering Regulations, Professional Duties of Conveyancers, Section 61 Trustee Act 1925, Contractual and Tortious Duties
Property Law Trusts Law Professional Negligence Breach of Trust Conveyancing Fraud Money Laundering Regulations Professional Duties of Conveyancers Section 61 Trustee Act 1925 +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hurry Narain Purrunsing

Claimant

A'Court & Co (A Firm)

First Defendant

House Owners Conveyancers Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Breach of Trust, Contract, and Negligence / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether either defendant should be granted relief under s.61 Trustee Act 1925
  2. 2 Whether HOC is liable to the claimant for breach of contract or negligence
  3. 3 Whether and what contribution should each defendant bear for liability to the claimant

Ratio Decidendi

Both ACC and HOC acted in breach of trust by releasing purchase monies without genuine completion. Neither defendant was entitled to relief under s.61 Trustee Act 1925 as they failed to act reasonably in the circumstances, particularly regarding due diligence and warning signs of fraud. HOC was also liable in contract and tort for failing to advise the claimant of unsatisfactory responses to due diligence enquiries, thereby exposing him to an undisclosed risk. Both defendants were ordered to contribute equally to the claimant's loss.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed against both defendants for breach of trust; claim allowed against HOC for breach of contract and duty; both defendants denied relief under s.61 Trustee Act 1925; contribution ordered equally between defendants.

Orders

  • Judgment for claimant against both defendants for breach of trust.
  • Judgment for claimant against HOC for breach of contract and duty.