Claimants interested in purchase of mock-Tudor house of part-timber construction – Claimants engaging defendant to carry out structural survey – Report failing to draw attention to various matters that would have justified price reduction – Claimants proceeding with purchase – Conflict of expert evidence as to whether timber damage beyond repair – Extent to which damages should exceed the cost of remedying unreported defects
In February 1994 the claimant husband and wife engaged the defendant firm to carry out a structural survey on a house that they were considering purchasing at a cost of £197,000. The house was built in the mid-1930s to a mock-Tudor design, and stood in a one acre garden with a sea view over Beachy Head. The northern section was constructed of standard masonry cavity walls. The southern section was built around an oak timber framework that included a substantial bressumer*, running the entire width of the elevation. The bressumer was supported by three timber posts that were set into concrete at ground level. In their letter of engagement, the claimants explained that they would not look to the survey as a means to negotiate a price reduction unless it revealed a significant defect that was not readily apparent. No such defect was disclosed in the defendant’s report, and in May 1994 the claimants bought the house.
In April 1997 the claimants brought an action against the defendant, contending that a number of significant defects had not been brought to their attention. The judge found that five of these, which related, inter alia, to the condition of the plumbing, the windows and the wall ties, had caused the claimants to incur an unplanned expenditure of £12,500. It was further found that the defendant had negligently ignored matters that would have led him to discover a progressive settlement of the bressumer due to rotting of the supporting posts. However, rejecting the view of the claimants’ expert that nothing short of total demolition and rebuilding would suffice, the judge held that he was satisfied that the house could be brought to the expected structural standard at a cost of no more than £6,800.
Held: The claimants could recover £40,000, as representing their overpayment for the house, and a further £5,881 as general damages and for payment made for a consideration that had totally failed.
1. As stated in Watts v Morrow [1991] 2 EGLR 152, the basic measure was the difference between the value of the property, to be purchased in the condition indicated by the negligent report, and the actual value. On the evidence put before the court (including the state of the market in 1994), a properly informed purchaser would have been able to negotiate the price down, not only by the £20,000 needed for immediate repairs, but also by an amount (estimated by the court at £20,000) that was sufficient to overcome the purchaser’s reluctance to accept the possibility that further work on the southern section might be required in the future.
2. In assessing damages for physical inconvenience and discomfort, it had to be taken into account that, although the claimants were in permanent residence over the years in question, a substantial part of the building work was occasioned by improvements. Accordingly, the sum of £5,000 should be awarded, rather than the £10,000 sought by the claimants.
3. Fees totalling £7,251 paid to specialist contractors and the claimants’ architect could not be recovered, as these would have been incurred even if the defendant had properly drawn the claimants’ attention to the defects complained of.
*Editor’s note: Beam used to support a projection.
Sean Brannigan (instructed by Thompson Snell & Passmore, of Tunbridge Wells) appeared for the claimants; Fiona Sinclair (instructed by Reynolds Porter Chamberlain) appeared for the defendant.
Alan Cooklin, barrister
