SEEMA ASHRAF v LESTER DOMINIC SOLICITORS (a firm)

A solicitor instructed by one party to a conveyancing transaction will not ordinarily owe a negligence duty to the opposing party or another third party. A duty requires more than foreseeability and proximity; the contractual framework, any assumption of responsibility and wider fairness considerations must be assessed cumulatively.

A person engaged only to witness a signature ordinarily undertakes an evidential role. That limited function does not, without more, create responsibility to verify identity or protect others from fraud-related loss. Summary judgment may resolve factual assertions contradicted by contemporaneous documents where there is no real prospect of the contrary evidence being accepted.

The Estate appealed against Deputy Master Lloyd’s order granting summary judgment to Lester Dominic Solicitors, Mr Kan and Rees Page, and dismissing the negligence claims. The appeal also challenged indemnity costs orders.

The Chief Land Registrar and Bank of Scotland applied for summary judgment and/or strike out. The Estate claimed an indemnity under the Land Registration Act 2002, rectification of the register, and relief concerning an allegedly forged transfer. The central issues were whether the negligence claims disclosed any duty of care, whether disputed matters could be resolved summarily, and whether the remaining statutory and banking claims were adequately pleaded.

1. Appeal dismissed. Summary judgment for Rees Page and Lester Dominic Solicitors, including Mr Kan, was upheld. The costs appeal was also dismissed.
2. Rees Page acted for the Bank, not the Deceased. The parties’ interests were conflicting on the Estate’s case. Applying Gran Gelato, NRAM and P&P/Dreamvar, the circumstances did not justify treating Rees Page as having assumed responsibility to the Deceased. The allegations that Mr Kilvert knew, or ought to have known, of the forgery were contradicted by the documents and had no real prospect of success.
3. Mr Kan’s role was confined to witnessing the signature. Attestation gives evidential protection but does not ordinarily involve responsibility for the transaction, identity verification or protection against economic loss. The pleaded circumstances did not justify imposing the alleged duty on LDS.
4. The summary judgment jurisdiction is concerned with absence of reality, not probability. Although factual disputes are not normally tried summarily, the court may reject assertions contradicted by contemporaneous evidence where there is no real prospect of their acceptance. A future trial involving other parties was not a compelling reason to retain claims which were incapable of succeeding.
5. The rectification claim was dismissed. The indemnity claim against the Chief Land Registrar was defective because it did not plead the decision required by paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 8 to the Land Registration Act 2002. It was ordered to be struck out unless the Estate promptly applied successfully to re-amend.
6. The existing claim against the Bank was struck out, but the Estate received a final opportunity to apply successfully to plead a potentially viable alternative claim concerning redemption of the original charge. The court retained this possibility because the issue substantially overlapped with the Registrar’s claim.

• High Court (Business List): Appeal against Deputy Master Lloyd’s order granting summary judgment to Lester Dominic Solicitors, Mr Kan and Rees Page was dismissed. The order was upheld.
• High Court: Claims for rectification were dismissed. Claims against the Chief Land Registrar and Bank of Scotland were conditionally struck out, subject to successful applications to re-amend.