CA 3 July 1991. A firm of solicitors, AW, agreed to act as stakeholder for the deposit for the sale of certain land by clients. Before completion the clients, who owed AW substantial sums in outstanding fees, went into receivership; their interest in the sale being assigned to the plaintiff company, R. AW were instructed by R and the purchaser to transfer the deposit to a new stakeholder. AW refused and on completion paid over part of the deposit to R, retaining the balance on account of the outstanding fees. In proceedings brought by R to recover the balance the judge held that AW had no arguable defence to the claim and entered summary judgement for R. AW appealed but this was dismissed on the grounds that the terms of the tripartite contract between a stakeholder, a vendor and a purchaser required the stakeholder to hold the deposit on behalf of both parties pending completion and therefore to pay it to the party entitled to receive it.