Author: Reyyan Mansoor, Middlesex University Dubai
To The Point
P&P Property Ltd v Owen White & Catlin LLP [2018] is a landmark UK case concerning property and identity fraud. Claimants P&P Property Ltd filed a case against defendants firm Owen White and Catlin LLP, the vendor’s solicitors, as well as the estate agents, Winkworth after the seller was found to be an impersonator causing P&P Property to lose hundreds of thousands of pounds. The claimants sued on the basis of negligence, breach of trust, breach of warranty of authority and the financial loss incurred.
Legal Jargon
An imposter successfully impersonated a property owner, Mr. Clifford Harper to sell a property in London. In 2013, the firm Owen White & Catlin LLP were contacted by an individual who claimed to be the property owner and instructed them to manage the sale of the property along with the estate agents, Winkworth.
An interested party, P&P Property Ltd showed interest in the property and in order to receive a rapid sale, the estate agents placed the property at £1.25 million as instructed by the vendor. The claimants paid a certain amount as a sort of deposit and the property transfer papers were sent to the vendor who needed to get it signed by a solicitor to witness and verify his signature. He agreed and the document was sent back with a signature by one Peter Lazarus of Winterhill Largo confirming the vendor’s identity and providing an address in Dubai.
The vendor pushed for the completion of the transaction as he claimed to want a different property in London and required the funds to proceed with the transaction. To accommodate, the firm Owen White & Catlin LLP proceeded to facilitate the early completion of the sale and the remaining funds were transferred to the firm and further sent across to the vendor supposedly completing the transaction.
The reality was only revealed after P&P Property went to register their name and the scam was found out.
The Proof
When the vendor approached Owen White & Catlin LLP, he was put through to Ms Lim who sent him via email various documents as well as an Anti-Money Laundering (AML) leaflet and information they needed in order to verify his ID. At this point in time, it was already established that the vendor lived abroad but mentioned to Ms Lim that he would return to the UK soon and provide her with the necessary documents including a passport and two utility bills.
While he provided his passport, he was only able to provide one out of two of the requested utility bills and stated that she would receive the rest by courier later on. Furthermore, he did not completely fill out the information regarding his identity and when pushed for specifics expressed wanting to sell the property instead of the original plan which was to use the property as a sort of loan.
It must be noted here that Ms Lim was unable to properly verify his identity as in the results of her AML search, there was no proper trace of his address or the provided date of birth. Despite these gaps, she accepted the vendor as her client.
Further evidence provided showed that incomplete bank statements were submitted to the firm which should have prompted further questioning, there were no queries regarding the fact that the address of the vendor was listed in Dubai.
The transfer papers were signed by Peter Lazarus who the court later found was suspended from practice in 2010 and the listed company, Winterhill Largo, was not a firm but a debt recovery company.
The main legal arguments of the claimants were citing negligence of the defendants who failed to carry out the necessary identity checks and guarantee the safety of the interaction; breach of trust in the form of the funds not being held on trust by the firm and breach of warranty of authority by acting for the imposter.
The court originally dismissed the claims made by the claimants entirely. The claimants then applied to the Court of Appeal unsatisfied by the decision of the High Court. The Court of Appeal ruled that Owen White & Catlin LLP were not liable for negligence or breach of trust, or breach of warranty of authority. The estate agents, Winkworth, were found to be not liable for any of the claims brought forward by the claimants. It must be remembered that in both rulings, P&P Property was awarded no damages.
Abstract
This case deals with property and identity fraud. A company, P&P Property had purchased a property ‘sold’ to them by a supposed London property owner, with the paperwork and other details being taken care of by a law firm, Owen White & Catlin LLP and estate agency, Winkworth. This property owner, however, was an imposter impersonating the owner and left with the funds released to him by the firm who assumed he was a legitimate property owner in London. The claimants, P&P Property sued the firm and estate agency for the financial loss suffered along with the breach of trust, among other claims.
Case Law
P&P Property Ltd v Owen White & Catlin LLP [2018] is a landmark case with the principle established being used as a precedent in many cases, mainly dealing with property fraud and liability. It is commonly paired with its sister case Dreamvar (UK) Ltd v Mishcon de Reya [2018] whose judgement appeared the same day as P&P Property. They both dealt with similar legal issues.
Dreamvar (UK) Ltd v Mishcon de Reya [2018] EWCA Civ 1082 was a case brought to the Court of Appeal whose judgement was given around the same time as P&P Property Ltd. Here it was established that if a buyer’s solicitor releases the funds to the vendor’s solicitor and the solicitor releases those funds to the vendor without proper authority, even if they were acting reasonably makes them liable for breach of trust. In application to the buyer’s solicitor, they are held liable for breach of trust to the buyer if they release the funds to the vendor’s solicitor even if they did act in a reasonable fashion.
Conclusion
This English landmark case concerned the concepts of property fraud and liability. The claimants, P&P Property Ltd sued the defendants Owen White & Catlin LLP and estate agents Winkworth after an imposter impersonating a property owner ‘sold’ a property to the claimants and left with the funds. The main claims made by the claimants were in regards to negligence, breach of trust, breach of warranty of authority and the financial loss suffered by the company. The case went to the Court of Appeal where the court ruled in favor of the defendants citing that neither Owen White & Catlin LLP nor Winkworth were not liable for the claims made by the claimants.
FAQ’s
1. Who were the parties in this case?
The parties were the claimants, P&P Property Ltd and the defendants were the firm Owen White & Catlin LLP and the estate agency, Winkworth.
2. Were the defendants found liable for the claims made by the claimants?
ONo, the court ruled in favor of the defendants finding them not liable for the claims made by the claimants.
