Seema Ashraf v Lester Dominic Solicitors & Ors

A solicitor generally owes a duty of care only to the client for whom the solicitor has agreed to provide services. Foreseeability, proximity and an alignment of interests with a non-client do not, without more, create a duty.

An exception may arise where the solicitor steps outside the ordinary client role and assumes an independent or shared responsibility. It was arguable that a solicitor completing a Land Registry application did so when giving identity-related confirmations concerning every party. Those confirmations were intended to reduce property fraud and might protect the true registered proprietor. That issue required a trial and could not be determined summarily.

The appellant represented the estate of a registered proprietor who had suffered successive frauds concerning his property. The respondent solicitors acted for a bank and submitted a replacement transfer and charge for registration. The estate alleged that the proprietor’s signature on the transfer was forged and that the solicitors owed him a duty to take reasonable care over its execution and registration.

A deputy master granted summary judgment for the solicitors. Edwin Johnson J dismissed the estate’s appeal in [2022] EWHC 621 (Ch), holding that the evidence disclosed no arguable exception to the usual rule that solicitors owe no duty to a non-client. On the second appeal, the central issues were whether the estate’s disputed factual allegations had a real prospect of success and whether completing the Land Registry AP1 form arguably caused the solicitors to assume responsibility towards the proprietor.

1. Appeal allowed on a limited basis. Nugee LJ, with whom Floyd and Arnold LJJ agreed, held that summary judgment should be set aside so that the claim could proceed concerning the completion and submission of the AP1 form. The court did not decide that a duty existed. It held only that the issue was arguable and should be determined after the relevant facts were established at trial.
2. A solicitor’s core duty to a client is to perform the agreed service with reasonable care and skill. A solicitor ordinarily owes no corresponding duty to a non-client because no service has been undertaken for that person. Foreseeability, proximity and an alignment between the client’s and third party’s interests do not suffice. The court rejected the proposed duty for everything done before submission of the AP1 form. There had been no undertaking to protect the proprietor, representation on which he relied, or objectively reasonable basis for treating the solicitors as responsible to him.
3. Exceptional duties to non-clients may arise where a retainer is intended to benefit a particular third party, where reasonable and foreseeable reliance is placed on a solicitor’s representation, or where the solicitor steps outside the ordinary client role and assumes an independent or shared responsibility. The last category reflected the principle in Al-Kandari.
4. It was arguable that completing AP1 Box 13 engaged that principle. Although acting for the bank, the solicitor gave confirmations relating to every party. The form explained that identity checks reduced property fraud. The true registered proprietor was a likely beneficiary of that protection. This materially differed from anti-money-laundering checks considered in P&P, which protected society generally rather than a particular class threatened by identity fraud.
5. The estate’s separate factual allegations concerning conversations with the solicitor had no real prospect of proof. They lacked supporting evidence and were irreconcilable with the coherent contemporaneous documents. Summary judgment principles did not require the court to accept fanciful assertions merely because they appeared in a verified pleading.
6. The estate would need to amend its pleading to advance the AP1 case. The Court of Appeal expressed no view on whether permission to amend should be granted.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal was allowed to the limited extent of setting aside summary judgment. The claim could proceed concerning the arguable duty arising from completion and submission of the AP1 form.
2. High Court, Business List (ChD): In [2022] EWHC 621 (Ch), Edwin Johnson J dismissed the estate’s appeal, holding that the evidence disclosed no real prospect of establishing a duty of care to the non-client proprietor.
3. Deputy Master: Deputy Master Lloyd granted summary judgment for the respondent solicitors on 13 December 2019 because no duty of care arose on the evidence.