A Wakefield couple who discovered that their home had been the site of a gruesome murder have sued the vendors for failing adequately to inform them.
Alan and Susan Sykes purchased an £83,000 house in Stillwell Drive in December 2000. While watching a crime documentary on television, the couple realised that, 15 years previously, Leeds University dental biologist Dr Samson Perera had murdered his 13-year-old adopted daughter on the premises.
According to the Channel 5 programme Arrest and Trial, Perera had dismembered the victim’s body into more than 100 pieces, and had hidden them under the floorboards, in pot plants and in a coffee jar. Some pieces have never been found. Perera was convicted of the murder in 1985.
Following their discovery, the couple put the house on the market, but struggled to find a buyer and ultimately lost £8,000 on the sale. They are claiming damages from the vendors, James and Alison Taylor-Rose, on the ground that, if they had known the history of the property, they would never have made the purchase.
The couple maintain that the Taylor-Roses had answered “no” question 13 on the sellers’ property information form, which asked: “Is there any other information which you think the buyer may have a right to know?” In the light of the vendors’ knowledge about the property, they claim, this answer amounted to a misrepresentation or a negligent misstatement.
In the county court, Judge Langan held that the Taylor-Roses had been unaware of the history of the house when they bought it in 1998. They had allegedly learnt the truth from an anonymous note pushed through their letterbox in early 1999.
The judge stated that the vendors had sought advice from their solicitor with regard to a potential claim against the previous owner, but had been informed that neither the original seller nor they had an obligation to disclose the history of the house.
On appeal, Clive Freedman, counsel for the Sykeses, claimed that when they had tried to sell the property, which is located in the desirable Sandal area of Wakefield, they had had great difficulty in so doing. He maintained that any prospective purchasers who had originally offered the market price had withdrawn their offers upon learning of the macabre history.
He said: “The fact that the gruesome murder still resonates years after it took place is evidenced by the fact that the television programme was made and by the reaction of the prospective purchasers who did not want to move into such a property.”
However, he denied that the claim challenged the principle of caveat emptor, saying: “It does not appear to us to be a case that will bring to an end the doctrine of caveat emptor in contracts for the sale of land. What, in our submission, this case is about is a case of misrepresentation or breach of duty of care as regards to a particular contract inquiry, and relating to facts that are extremely unusual.”
If the couple are successful in their appeal, the ruling could reinforce the duty on both sellers and estate agents to disclose to buyers information about the history of properties.
Sykes and another v Taylor-Rose and another Court of Appeal (Peter Gibson and Mantell LJJ and Sir William Aldous) 27 February 2004.
References: EGi Legal News 27/2/04
