Claimant purchasing land – Solicitor failing to advise in relation to anti-building line and non-registration of covenants – Quantification of damages – Whether damages to be reduced to take account of amount paid by solicitor for deed of release from anti-building line – Judge reducing damages – Claimant’s appeal dismissed
In November 1979 T conveyed Prime Farm to G. The conveyance imposed five restrictive covenants in favour of T’s retained land. One of the covenants prohibited building south of a line described as A-B. The others protected T’s land, principally against certain agricultural uses. G’s solicitor omitted to register any of the covenants in accordance with the Land Charges Act 1972, and, in December 1981, the covenants became void upon the conveyance of T’s land to the claimant.
The claimant subsequently issued proceedings against his solicitors, the defendants, complaining that: (i) they had failed to advise him properly as to the true position of the anti-building line A-B, as a result of which he had believed it gave him a greater degree of protection than it actually did; and (ii) they had failed to discover, or to advise upon, the non-registration of the covenants.
The first claim, in respect of the anti-building line, was compromised by a deed of release of August 1991 for a sum of £13,500 paid by the defendants. In relation to the second claim, the judge found for the claimant and held that: (i) the claimant was obliged to give credit for the sum of £13,500, received pursuant to the deed of release, to the extent of £4,675, representing the backdated value of that sum at December 1981 values; (ii) the diminution in value as a result of the non-registration of the covenants was 15% of the 1981 value of £83,000; and (iii) the resulting damages to be awarded were £8,024 (£12,450, less £4,675, plus an additional sum in respect of stamp duty).
The defendants appealed, contending that the August 1991 release amounted to satisfaction of all claims arising out of the purchase of the property. The claimant cross-appealed against the deduction of £4,675. It was submitted that the reasoning behind that deduction, that the claimant had already been compensated in part for loss attributable to the anti-building line, was inconsistent with another finding of the judge that the claimant had, in fact, suffered no loss as a result of being misinformed as to the true position of the line, because the price paid by the claimant reflected the value of the land with the less favourable line.
Held: The deed of release of August 1991 had not been intended to relate to any subsequent claims. Whether the claimant’s damages were to be reduced as a result of the deed was a question of fact and the trial judge’s conclusion could not be held to be wrong.
David Fletcher (instructed by Ledbury Raskin, of Kingswood) appeared for the claimant; Daniel Gerrans (instructed by Ince & Co) appeared for the defendant.
Thomas Elliott, barrister
