Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Printer Friendly Version
In what circumstances will a firm of solicitors be liable where a contract conditional on planning fails to complete? The High Court confirmed that a firm's retainer does not extend to advising on planning or commercial issues.
Rentokil Initial 1927 plc v Goodman Derrick LLP  EWHC 2994 (Ch)
Goodman Derrick (GD) was retained by Rentokil to act on its behalf in the sale of commercial office premises to Taylor Wimpey. The purchase was to be subject to the grant of planning consent for development for residential purposes. Planning consent was to be sought after exchange of contracts. Completion was to be dependent on the grant of planning consent with acceptable conditions.
Rentokil asserted that:
At the heart of the allegations was the assertion that GD failed to properly draft and advise on the definition of 'Unacceptable Planning Conditions'. Rentokil also asserted that GD was negligent in drafting the definition of 'Costs' payable in respect of obligations to be performed under a Town and Country Planning Act 1990, s 106 agreement between Taylor Wimpey, as buyer, and the local planning authority--with the result that the definition was capable of reducing the purchase price when it ought not to have been.
Taylor Wimpey had argued that the planning conditions that were ultimately imposed were unacceptable and refused to complete the purchase. The parties started arbitration proceedings on the issue, which were compromised a few days before the hearing was due to take place. The compromise provided for completion of the sale to Taylor Wimpey but at a lower price than had been agreed under the contract. Steps had also been taken to determine the question of the s 106 agreement 'Costs' and that dispute was also compromised. Rentokil's primary claim was for the difference in value between the original contract price and the renegotiated price, estimating its loss at approximately £1.88m, alternatively for the loss of a chance of obtaining the original price. In addition it claimed the wasted costs of the arbitration (£600,000).
Rentokil argued GD owed a duty in contract and at common law to exercise reasonable care and skill in:
GD admitted that it owed Rentokil a duty to exercise reasonable care and skill, but argued that the scope of its retainer was to advise the claimant on legal issues arising, or potentially arising, from the agreement and not on planning or commercial issues, whether or not unusual or disadvantageous. Such matters fell within the scope of Rentokil's surveyors's retainer. Rentokil accepted it was not GD's duty to advise on commercial risks.
The court dismissed Rentokil's claim.
The definition of 'Unacceptable Planning Conditions' did not expose Rentokil to the risks they asserted as the foundation of their claim against GD. Rentokil would have been successful at arbitration against Taylor Wimpey.
As an example, Taylor Wimpey argued that a planning condition that the development should commence no later than three years from the date of the decision (a very common planning condition) was unacceptable as it was caught by one of the definitions of 'Unacceptable Planning Conditions'--'limiting the planning permission to a set period of time' (a commonly used definition). The court disagreed with this literal interpretation by Rentokil.
GD had drafted, negotiated or approved terms which reflected the heads of terms and the commercial deal which had been struck and achieved the balance which the parties intended. They were not terms which no reasonably competent practitioner could, in the circumstances, have drafted or agreed to. Nor did they expose Rentokil to unnecessary risks. There was no obvious danger of a damaging alternative construction. That Taylor Wimpey chose to advance a different (incorrect and implausible) construction to the true construction was not good evidence, nor a good reason, for concluding that the drafting was defective. GD did not act in breach of its retainer or negligently in this respect.
Nor was GD negligent in drafting the definition of 'Planning Agreement' and its advice in respect of it:
County Personnel (Employment Agency) Ltd v Alan R Pulver & Co  1 All ER 289
The court confirmed that 'If in the exercise of a reasonable professional judgement a solicitor is or should be alerted to risks which might elude even an intelligent layman, then plainly it is his duty to advise the client of these risks or explore the matter further'.
However, the precise scope of the duty to advise depends, among other matters, on the extent to which the client appears to need advice:
'An inexperienced client will need and will be entitled to expect the solicitor to take a much broader view of the scope of his retainer and of his duties then will be the case with an experienced client.' (Carradine Properties Ltd v DJ Freeman and Co  Lloyd's Rep 48--not available in LexisLibrary)
At all material times, and in particular at the date when he instructed GD to exchange contracts, Mr Brown--Rentokil's representative in instructing GD--had a proper understanding of the risks inherent in the transaction and the detail and effect of the terms of the contract which were designed to achieve a balance between the buyer and seller's respective interests. He was a qualified solicitor and company secretary with worldwide responsibility for the Rentokil group.
The absence of a formal seller's report and specific evidence of a line-by-line explanation of the contract did not detract from this finding about Mr Brown's knowledge and understanding, nor from the court's conclusion that GD did not fail in its duty to advise Rentokil.
Midland Bank v Hett Stubbs and Kemp  3 All ER 571
The court highlighted the confirmation in Midland that:
'[...]the court must be aware of imposing upon solicitors [...] duties which go beyond the scope of what they are requested and undertake to do [...] the duty is directly related to the confines of the retainer.'
Rentokil was a highly sophisticated commercial client acting through highly experienced personnel, including Mr Brown, a solicitor of considerable commercial experience. It was not necessary for GD to undertake a line-by-line analysis of the contract. GD properly discharged its duties to the claimant at all material times.
The practical effect of the various clauses was a matter for the surveyors to advise on, not GD, and it was entirely appropriate that GD should assume that the surveyors could provide such advice--which they did.
The decision will be welcomed by solicitors responsible for drafting contracts which include planning conditionality. The court was not impressed with the client's reliance on the buyer's implausible interpretation of the planning conditionality to found its negligence claim.
Nonetheless, best practice must be to provide a full report to the seller client on the terms of the contract - albeit summarised in an executive summary - and to advise the client to seek specialist planning surveyor's advice on the effect of the drafting.
0330 161 1234