A solicitor of 50 years’ practice who insisted he could not breach an undertaking unless he specifically categorised it as such has been fined by the tribunal.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal heard that Robin Stubbings, a sole practitioner with Bedford firm CC Bell & Son, had acted for a seller in a conveyancing transaction when he was the subject of a complaint by the buyer’s solicitors. That firm claimed Stubbs breached an undertaking after a restriction on the title of the property was not removed, causing the buyer’s application to register the property at HM Land Registry to be rejected. This in turn resulted in financial losses as well as considerable time spent chasing.
Stubbings denied to the Solicitors Regulation Authority that he had given an undertaking, despite agreeing to the Law Society’s code of completion for the transaction. He had also completed and sent the Law Society completion information and undertakings form TA13.
He told the SRA: ‘I clearly indicated to [the other solicitors] during the conveyancing process that forms RX3 and ST5 could be provided to enable the restriction on the proprietorship register of the title to be cancelled. I do not believe that I gave an "undertaking" as such. If I give an undertaking I actually use the word "undertaking".'
The SRA submitted to the tribunal that the provision of the RX3 and ST5 on completion were undertakings as they were clear unequivocal declarations of intention addressed to the buyer who reasonably placed reliance on them. The word undertaking, said the SRA, was not necessary for a statement to be considered an undertaking.
Stubbings did not attend the hearing and was not represented. He had earlier acknowledged that it took far too long to make the application for the Land Registry to cancel the restriction in the proprietorship register of the relevant title.
The tribunal found Stubbings’ agreement to complete in accordance with the completion code was indeed an undertaking.
It added: ‘Mr Stubbings had provided an unequivocal and categoric confirmation that he would provide the documentation upon completion. That confirmation was reasonably relied upon. That fact that Mr Stubbings did not expressly use the work undertake or undertaking did not mean that he had not provided [it].’
Stubbings, who qualified as a solicitor in 1975, was also found to have failed to cooperate with the SRA investigation after missing various deadlines for responses. He had been fined £15,000 by the tribunal in 2019 for failing to return client monies promptly and failing to progress at least five probate matters.
This time he was fined £17,500 and ordered to pay £5,500 costs, as well as being barred from acting as a sole practitioner for 18 months.
