Purchasers claiming negligence against solicitors in relation to conveyance of property – High Court finding solicitors instructed by purchasers not to pursue matters complained of – Whether instruction given by one purchaser relieved solicitor of duty to other purchasers – Court of Appeal allowing appeal
In 1987 the appellant and her husband, F, her sister and brother and their spouses, planned to pool resources and find a home in Devon to which they could retire. They offered the asking price of £132,000 on a property known as Blakewell Court, near Pixford, (the property), which had been part of a larger property subdivided into separate ownership. They instructed the defendant firm of solicitors who instituted a local authority search and inquiries before contract. The vendor required a quick exchange. The appellant’s brother and his wife dropped out of the plan. However the remaining four, (the purchasers), decided to proceed and contracts were exchanged and the purchase completed.
Subsequently the purchasers issued proceedings claiming that the defendant had been negligent in failing to give proper advice in relation to, inter alia, the sewage system under the front lawn of the property for the shared use of 17 persons only, a public footpath which ran across the front lawn of the property and the restricted planning permission for the conversion of the garage. The defendant claimed that it had raised each of the matters complained of with F who had given instructions on behalf of the purchasers that there was no need to make further inquiries. The High Court dismissed the purchasers’ claim finding that the defendant had brought to the purchasers’ attention the potential problems relating to the footpath, the septic tank and the garage, and had received instructions from F which had relieved it from taking further action with regard to those matters. The appellant appealed contending that she had not given F express authority to give instructions to the defendant to dispense with the inquiries which a prudent solicitor would have ordinarily made, and therefore the defendant’s contractual duties towards her had not been discharged.
Held The appeal was allowed.
1. It could be concluded from the judge’s findings that the relevant information in relation to the footpath, the septic tank and the garage was imparted only to F and that instructions to proceed without regard to potential problems were given by F alone.
2. A solicitor’s contract of retainer was with each and every client and the duties of a solicitor were owed, and had to be discharged, to each of them. Accordingly a solicitor was not entitled to communicate with, and take instruction from, only one of several clients unless he had the authority of the other clients to do so. There was no evidence to justify a finding either that F had had the actual authority, whether express or implied, of the appellant or the other purchasers to instruct the defendant not to proceed with the inquiries, or that F had had the apparent authority to do so. Therefore the defendant had not discharged its duty to the appellant.
Robert Levy (instructed by Slee Blackwell, of Barnstaple) appeared for the appellant; Susan Solomon (instructed by Reynolds Porter Chamberlain) appeared for the respondent.
