- Real Estate
- Residential property
Shorter Reads
1 minute read
Published 24 September 2018
Judgment has now been handed down in the appeal by the Appellant, Stoffel and Co, in the case of Stoffel & Co v Grondona [2018] EWCA Civ 2031 (13 September 2018). This case concerns what some see as the more juicy bits of property law and others see as a nightmare; that being negligence, illegality and mortgage fraud.
A claim was originally brought by Ms Grondona as her solicitors negligently failed to register the transfer of her property together with the discharge of the existing charge and registering a new legal charge. All fairly standard things to be done in a conveyancing transaction.
When the case was brought to appeal by the Appellant, they sought to use a defence of illegality – as Ms Grondona had been a participant in a mortgage fraud to deceive the mortgagee.
It seems harsh on first glance that this defence was not successful. However, the Appellant had no knowledge of the deception, they were not party to it and they could not therefore seek to use this to escape their negligence. The judgment is therefore a clear reminder that the question to be considered is whether relief should be granted and not whether a transaction is tainted with illegality (as per Lord Toulson in Patel v Mirza [2016] UKSC 42 at [107])
https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2018/2031.html&query=(Stoffel)
Shorter Reads
Published 24 September 2018
Judgment has now been handed down in the appeal by the Appellant, Stoffel and Co, in the case of Stoffel & Co v Grondona [2018] EWCA Civ 2031 (13 September 2018). This case concerns what some see as the more juicy bits of property law and others see as a nightmare; that being negligence, illegality and mortgage fraud.
A claim was originally brought by Ms Grondona as her solicitors negligently failed to register the transfer of her property together with the discharge of the existing charge and registering a new legal charge. All fairly standard things to be done in a conveyancing transaction.
When the case was brought to appeal by the Appellant, they sought to use a defence of illegality – as Ms Grondona had been a participant in a mortgage fraud to deceive the mortgagee.
It seems harsh on first glance that this defence was not successful. However, the Appellant had no knowledge of the deception, they were not party to it and they could not therefore seek to use this to escape their negligence. The judgment is therefore a clear reminder that the question to be considered is whether relief should be granted and not whether a transaction is tainted with illegality (as per Lord Toulson in Patel v Mirza [2016] UKSC 42 at [107])
https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2018/2031.html&query=(Stoffel)
Need some more information? Make an enquiry below.
Subscribe
Please add your details and your areas of interest below
Article contributor
Senior Associate
Specialising in Commercial real estate and Residential property
Enjoy reading our articles? why not subscribe to notifications so you’ll never miss one?
Subscribe to our articlesPlease note that Collyer Bristow provides this service during office hours for general information and enquiries only and that no legal or other professional advice will be provided over the WhatsApp platform. Please also note that if you choose to use this platform your personal data is likely to be processed outside the UK and EEA, including in the US. Appropriate legal or other professional opinion should be taken before taking or omitting to take any action in respect of any specific problem. Collyer Bristow LLP accepts no liability for any loss or damage which may arise from reliance on information provided. All information will be deleted immediately upon completion of a conversation.
Close