Solicitor Kim Singh Landa fined £5k as missed land registry notice backfires

SDT fines Landa £5,000 and orders £3,452 costs after failure to register client notice

Solicitor Kim Singh Landa has been fined £5,000 by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) after he failed to register an agreed notice at HM Land Registry, breaching an undertaking that was meant to protect an investor’s stake in a Blackburn property deal.

Landa, admitted in 2006 and then an assistant solicitor at HSK Solicitors LLP, acted for Newbury Venture Capital Limited (NVCL) on a joint venture with three investors. One investor, identified as Mr JM and represented by Drysdales Solicitors, contributed £25,000 with an agreed profit of £15,400. To secure that interest, Landa’s firm undertook to register a Form AN1 against the title once funds arrived.

Drysdales transferred the £25,000 on 3 January 2014. On the same day, Landa confirmed in writing: “Please accept our undertaking to register the AN1 upon receipt of your funds.” A draft notice was exchanged and an application went in, but requisitions followed. The first application was cancelled in February 2014, and although the firm re-submitted in March, the agreed notice for Mr JM never made it onto the register. By April 2014, the Land Registry had completed title updates that recorded another investor’s interest, but not Mr JM’s. The file was then closed.

In December 2014 NVCL sold the property. Months later, Drysdales chased confirmation that the undertaking had been fulfilled. In a 2 April 2015 letter, Landa told Drysdales the Land Registry had removed an application to register an equitable charge for Mr JM and suggested NVCL may have acted with the client’s consent. That was wrong. The Land Registry confirmed on 9 April 2015 that no application to note Mr JM’s agreement had ever been submitted.

The SRA brought the case, alleging Landa failed to honour his undertaking, failed to comply with legal and regulatory obligations, and provided inaccurate information to the investor’s solicitors. Landa admitted breaching Principle 6 of the SRA Principles 2011 by failing to maintain public trust, and admitted failing to achieve Outcome 11.2 of the SRA Code of Conduct by not performing the undertaking within a reasonable time. He denied breaching Principle 7, but the tribunal found that charge proved, holding that failing to perform the undertaking meant he did not comply with his legal and regulatory obligations.

The tribunal said the facts were straightforward: an undertaking was given and not performed. It noted Mr JM’s interest should have been protected and that, had the AN1 been registered, funds due on sale would have been secured. The panel accepted that confusion had arisen on the file and that other staff had worked on it, but concluded Landa bore ultimate responsibility. It also found that his 2 April 2015 letter to Drysdales contained inaccurate information, again breaching Principle 6, although the SRA had not alleged any more serious misconduct in relation to that communication.

Mitigation carried weight. Landa had a previously unblemished record, made early admissions to key allegations, expressed remorse and shame, and said he had changed his working practices—tighter supervision, closer oversight of files, and better attention to undertakings. Character references supported his position that this was a one-off error in a busy conveyancing environment.

Even so, the SDT stressed the centrality of solicitors’ undertakings to conveyancing. Without confidence in undertakings, the process “would grind to a halt.” Breaching one, the panel said, causes foreseeable harm—to the client expecting protection, to public confidence, and to the profession’s reputation. The tribunal assessed the misconduct towards the lower end of seriousness and found no personal gain, but treated the breach as significant given the potential and alleged actual financial consequences for the investor.

Rejecting lesser outcomes such as no order or a reprimand, and finding suspension disproportionate, the tribunal imposed a £5,000 fine. It also ordered Landa to pay £3,452 in costs after reviewing and trimming the SRA’s schedule. The decision underlines a stark message: when a solicitor gives an undertaking, performance is not optional, and any failure will be measured against the profession’s duty to protect the public and maintain trust.