LSC Finance Ltd v Abensons Law Ltd (t/a Abensons Solicitors)

LSC Finance Ltd v Abensons Law Ltd (t/a Abensons Solicitors)

The wording of the undertaking was clear and required Abensons to confirm the execution of the first legal charge by Gail Ann Boddice. Abensons breached the terms of the undertaking by failing to ensure the charge was executed by Mrs Boddice herself, not merely someone purporting to be her. The risk of imposture was assumed by Abensons under the undertaking.

Parties
Claimant: LSC Finance Limited; Defendant/applicant: Abensons Law Limited t/a Abensons Solicitors
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
Solicitor Undertakings, Breach of Trust, Warranty of Authority, Duty of Care, Interpretation of Undertakings
Contract Law Professional Negligence Trusts Law Solicitor Undertakings Breach of Trust Warranty of Authority Duty of Care Interpretation of Undertakings

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LSC Finance Limited

Claimant

Abensons Law Limited t/a Abensons Solicitors

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Abensons breached their undertaking to LSC regarding the execution of a legal charge.
  2. 2 Whether Abensons breached a warranty of authority and duty of care owed to LSC.
  3. 3 Whether a Quistclose trust arose and was breached by Abensons.

Ratio Decidendi

The wording of the undertaking was clear and required Abensons to confirm the execution of the first legal charge by Gail Ann Boddice. Abensons breached the terms of the undertaking by failing to ensure the charge was executed by Mrs Boddice herself, not merely someone purporting to be her. The risk of imposture was assumed by Abensons under the undertaking.

Court Disposition

application refused

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal is refused.