Coatman & Anor, R (on the application of) v Council for Licensed Conveyancers [2012] EWHC 1648 (Admin) (22 June 2012)

Coatman & Anor, R (on the application of) v Council for Licensed Conveyancers [2012] EWHC 1648 (Admin) (22 June 2012)

On the agreed facts, the claimants' losses arose in connection with the purported practice of McKenna and Co as licensed conveyancers, either through the receipt of monies for purported conveyancing transactions or through the failure to provide promised legal charges as security. The Committee misdirected itself in law by failing to consider the statutory scope of 'purported practice' and the definition of conveyancing services, and thus erred in finding the claims ineligible for compensation.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 1648 (Admin)
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 / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed; decision quashed
Legal Topics
Statutory Interpretation, Compensation Fund Eligibility, Regulation of Licensed Conveyancers, Fraud and Dishonesty, Failure to Account, Scope of Regulatory Schemes
Administrative Law Professional Regulation Compensation Law Statutory Interpretation Compensation Fund Eligibility Regulation of Licensed Conveyancers Fraud and Dishonesty Failure to Account +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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nigel Coatman

Claimant

Andrew Golub

Claimant

Council for Licensed Conveyancers

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants' losses were eligible for compensation under the statutory scheme for licensed conveyancers' compensation fund
  2. 2 Whether the losses arose 'in connection with' the practice or purported practice of licensed conveyancers as defined by statute
  3. 3 Whether the Committee misdirected itself in law regarding the scope of the compensation scheme

Ratio Decidendi

On the agreed facts, the claimants' losses arose in connection with the purported practice of McKenna and Co as licensed conveyancers, either through the receipt of monies for purported conveyancing transactions or through the failure to provide promised legal charges as security. The Committee misdirected itself in law by failing to consider the statutory scope of 'purported practice' and the definition of conveyancing services, and thus erred in finding the claims ineligible for compensation.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; decision quashed

Orders

  • Defendant to reconsider the claimants' applications for grants of compensation in accordance with the judgment