Coatman & Anor, R (on the application of) v Council for Licensed Conveyancers

Coatman & Anor, R (on the application of) v Council for Licensed Conveyancers

On the agreed facts, the claimants' losses arose in connection with the practice or purported practice of McKenna & Co as licensed conveyancers, either through the receipt of monies for purported conveyancing transactions or through the failure to provide promised security by way of legal charge. The committee misdirected itself in law by failing to consider the statutory scope of 'practice or purported practice' and by not addressing the agreed facts. The claimants' losses are eligible for consideration under the compensation scheme, and the committee's decision must be quashed.

Parties
Claimant: Nigel Coatman; Claimant: Andrew Golub; Defendant: Council for Licensed Conveyancers
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 June 2012
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed; decision quashed; reconsideration ordered
Legal Topics
Statutory Interpretation, Compensation Fund Eligibility, Regulation of Licensed Conveyancers, Judicial Review of Regulatory Decisions
Administrative Law Professional Regulation Statutory Interpretation Compensation Fund Eligibility Regulation of Licensed Conveyancers Judicial Review of Regulatory Decisions

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nigel Coatman

Claimant

Andrew Golub

Claimant

Council for Licensed Conveyancers

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants' losses were eligible for compensation under the statutory scheme for licensed conveyancers' compensation fund
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's committee misdirected itself in law regarding the scope of 'practice or purported practice' as a licensed conveyancer
  3. 3 Whether the dishonest misappropriation of funds by Mr McKenna was in connection with the practice or purported practice of licensed conveyancers

Ratio Decidendi

On the agreed facts, the claimants' losses arose in connection with the practice or purported practice of McKenna & Co as licensed conveyancers, either through the receipt of monies for purported conveyancing transactions or through the failure to provide promised security by way of legal charge. The committee misdirected itself in law by failing to consider the statutory scope of 'practice or purported practice' and by not addressing the agreed facts. The claimants' losses are eligible for consideration under the compensation scheme, and the committee's decision must be quashed.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; decision quashed; reconsideration ordered

Orders

  • The defendant's decision refusing the claimants' applications for grants of compensation is quashed.
  • The defendant is directed to reconsider the claimants' applications in light of this judgment.