Purrunsing v A'Court & Co (a firm) & Anor

Purrunsing v A'Court & Co (a firm) & Anor

Both ACC and HOC failed to act reasonably as trustees of the claimant’s purchase money. ACC failed to conduct adequate risk-based client due diligence as required by the Money Laundering Regulations and professional guidance, increasing the risk of fraud. HOC failed in its contractual and tortious duties to inform the claimant of unsatisfactory responses to enquiries, depriving him of the information needed to make an informed decision. Neither defendant is entitled to relief under s.61 Trustee Act 1925. Both are liable for the loss, and must contribute equally.

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 / Negligence / Contract / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim allowed against both defendants. Both defendants to bear equal responsibility for the loss.
Legal Topics
Breach of Trust, Money Laundering Regulations, Solicitor's Duties, Relief Under Trustee Act S.61, Contribution Between Defendants
Trust Law Conveyancing Law Professional Negligence Breach of Trust Money Laundering Regulations Solicitor's Duties Relief Under Trustee Act S.61 Contribution Between Defendants

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 5 Authorities cited 10 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 / Negligence / Contract / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether either defendant should be granted relief under s.61 of the Trustee Act 1925
  2. 2 Whether HOC is liable for breach of contract and/or negligence
  3. 3 Whether and what contribution should be ordered between defendants

Ratio Decidendi

Both ACC and HOC failed to act reasonably as trustees of the claimant’s purchase money. ACC failed to conduct adequate risk-based client due diligence as required by the Money Laundering Regulations and professional guidance, increasing the risk of fraud. HOC failed in its contractual and tortious duties to inform the claimant of unsatisfactory responses to enquiries, depriving him of the information needed to make an informed decision. Neither defendant is entitled to relief under s.61 Trustee Act 1925. Both are liable for the loss, and must contribute equally.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed against both defendants. Both defendants to bear equal responsibility for the loss.

Orders

  • Judgment for the claimant against both defendants for the full amount of the loss.
  • Each defendant to bear 50% of the liability.