“Vague” suggestions in an auctioneer’s sales brochure aren’t legally binding, a High Court judge has ruled in a case over some woodland plots in Henley-on-Thames.
The dispute centres on three plots of land on Stoke Road, Kingwood, Henley-on-Thames, sold via an online auction by Barnard Marcus Auctions in September 2020.
According to a ruling handed down today, the auction pack connected to the sale described that land as “Currently… mainly woodland with a variety of species but clearly offers a number of opportunities for a purchaser to consider alternative uses or even development of each plot, subject to the necessary consents.
“Buyers are deemed to rely solely on their own enquiries with regard to any development potential that may exist but are invited to utilise the computer-generated image shown in these particulars as an idea to take forward pre-application planning advice with the local authority.”
The images were two photographs of woodland and two computer-generated images of houses.
Dr Raman Prabu successfully bid for the plot at an agreed price of £26,539 but tried to pull out of the transaction when he discovered the site was ancient woodland with no development potential.
The owner of the site, Co Mayo Estates, sued Prabu for £8,000 to cover the deposit. Prabu countersued for almost £34,000, claiming misrepresentation and arguing that the amount was justified to cover legal fees.
Prabu lost following a trial at Nottingham County Court, and appealed it to the High Court, sitting in Birmingham. And in a ruling handed down today, High Court trial judge Mr Justice Bourne again rejected Prabu’s case and backed Co Mayo Estates.
Referring to the sales pack, the Judge said: “The key words, in my judgment, are ‘a number of opportunities for a purchaser to consider alternative uses or even development of each plot, subject to the necessary consents’, which are immediately followed by the ‘deemed to rely solely on their own enquiries’.”
“The phrase ‘alternative uses’ is entirely vague. The word ‘development’ is heavily qualified by ‘even’, and then qualified again by the express statement of the requirement for the ‘necessary consents’”.
“The clear meaning of the sentence is that the vendor is not making any representations about development potential, and the reference to development potential is again heavily qualified by the word ‘any’, meaning that there may be none.”
As for the images, he said they “at best encouraged unwise speculation”.
“It seems to me that the question of whether the land was usable for any residential development at all was a binary question,” the judge said.
“To say that it was, or that it was not, would have been a representation of fact with an ascertainable meaning. But in my judgment, to say merely that it might have been, would not.”
“The appeal will be dismissed,” he said.
Co Mayo Estates Ltd v Hidden Gem Ltd
High Court of Justice, Birmingham District Registry (Mr Justice Bourne) 26 February 2024
