Stoffel & Co v Grondona [2020] UKSC 42

Facts

  • The case concerned a property transaction in which Ms. Grondona, a solicitor, acted for both the buyer and the lender.
  • The transaction involved a fraudulent misrepresentation of the purchase price, with both the buyer and the solicitor colluding to secure a mortgage greater than the property's true value.
  • Stoffel & Co, the claimant, provided legal services to Ms. Grondona and sought payment for services under a retainer agreement.
  • At trial, it was found that Stoffel & Co had knowledge of the fraudulent arrangement but did not directly participate in the fraud’s execution.
  • The Court of Appeal held the retainer agreement unenforceable due to Stoffel & Co’s involvement in the fraud.
  • The Supreme Court applied the public interest factors approach established in Patel v Mirza to determine whether the agreement should be enforced despite the tainted circumstances.

Issues

  1. Whether the existence of fraudulent conduct (mortgage fraud) should render the retainer agreement unenforceable under the doctrine of illegality.
  2. Whether Stoffel & Co’s knowledge of, but peripheral involvement in, the fraud was sufficient to bar a contractual claim.
  3. How the public interest factors approach in Patel v Mirza should be applied in cases involving professionals with indirect involvement in illegal activity.

Decision

  • The Supreme Court found that denying enforcement of the retainer agreement would not substantially advance the policy purpose of preventing mortgage fraud, as Stoffel & Co’s involvement was peripheral.
  • The Court determined that refusing the claim would be a disproportionate response to the claimant’s wrongdoing, as Stoffel & Co had not actively participated in the fraudulent scheme.
  • It was held that to deny enforcement would result in a windfall for Ms. Grondona, who had benefited from the legal services.
  • The Court concluded that enforcing the agreement would not create inconsistency or undermine the integrity of the legal system in this context.
  • The public interest factors weighed in favour of allowing Stoffel & Co’s claim, and the contract was enforceable.

Legal Principles

  • The public interest factors approach, set out in Patel v Mirza, requires assessment of the prohibition’s purpose, proportionality of denying the claim, and potential inconsistency with legal system integrity.
  • Mere knowledge, without active participation in illegality, may not be enough to bar a claim based on a tainted contract.
  • The principle of proportionality must be considered when balancing deterrence of illegality against fairness in contractual enforcement.
  • The flexible, policy-based analysis is favoured over rigid application of illegality to contract enforcement disputes.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that a flexible, policy-based public interest approach governs illegality in contract enforcement. Peripheral involvement in fraud, without active participation, does not automatically bar a claim; proportionality and the specific context are central to the analysis.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal