Conveyancer on fixed fee had limited duties to client, court finds

A county court has thrown out a negligence claim against conveyancing solicitors after they successfully argued that the retainer limited what they were expected to do.

Homeowner Victoria Harry brought the claim for professional negligence against her former lawyers Curtis Law LLP (trading as CWC) arising from the purchase of a house in Plymouth in 2018. She alleged that she should have been told that a link road was to be constructed close to her new house and said she would not have bought it had she known.

The firm said it was instructed to undertake a straightforward conveyance of a new build property for a fixed fee of £695 plus VAT, and that the scope of the retainer did not extend to advising the client about wider road development schemes. Local searches indicated incorrectly that there was no scheme planned.

Following a two-day hearing at Plymouth County Court earlier this month, the claim was dismissed by His Honour Judge Mitchell in an unreported judgment and an interim order for costs imposed. 

One Chancery Lane’s Francesca O’Neill, instructed by London firm Reynolds Colman Bradley to represent Curtis Law, said the case illustrated the extent to which solicitors taking on large volume, low-cost work can limit the scope of their retainer.

‘Paying less, or even nothing, for a professional service does not alter the standard of the work that must be completed,’ said O’Neill. ‘However, in this case it was successfully argued that the low fee and strict limitation of the retainer circumscribed the work that had to be done. [The judge] found that there was no obligation on CWC’s part to advise on matters which were features of the wider development as opposed to this particular property.’

O’Neill said another interesting feature of the claim was the element of time pressure. The firm submitted that Harry put the firm under pressure to complete the conveyance after the developer offered her a £2,995 reduction if she completed within 28 days.

O’Neill said witnesses on both sides agreed this pressure ‘was tantamount to bullying’ in order to meet the deadline, and the firm argued that it would have been impossible to undertake the wider investigations that the claimant alleged were necessary in the time allowed.

The court said extending the deadline would have made no difference in any case, because there was no obligation to go further than the firm did. And O’Neill warned that professionals should be alert that, in different circumstances, merely being under time pressure is no bar to a finding of a negligence. ‘If it is not possible to complete the tasks mandated by the retainer in the time allotted, a professional should warn their client clearly and in writing,’ she added.

This article is now closed for comment.