Plaintiff purchasing property relying on report produced by defendant – Defendant not revealing existence of two mine adits – Plaintiff seeking damages – Whether defendant in breach of duty of care – Plaintiff’s claim failed
In 1985 following a request by the plaintiff’s solicitors, the defendant prepared a mining report relating to 16 Tilewright Close, Kidsgrove, Staffordshire. The plaintiff’s inquiry had been directed to any mineshafts in the vicinity of the property. Relying upon the contents of the report, the plaintiff purchased the property. In 1992 the plaintiff sought to sell the property and a further report was prepared by the defendant upon request of a prospective purchaser. That report revealed the existence of two mine adits close to the property. The plaintiff lost the sale and was unable to find another purchaser. The plaintiff claimed that, had she known of the mine edits, she would not have purchased the property. The plaintiff sought damages for the difference between the price paid and the value of the property had the existence of the adits been known. She also claimed damages for inconvenience and disruption consequent upon the failure to sell. It was submitted that in “the vicinity” did not mean “such as would affect the stability of the property”, which had been the approach taken by the defendant in preparing its 1985 report. The defendant submitted that the report had to be seen in the context of its time, namely that reports were limited to physical threats and, at that date, the inquirer knew the basis upon which inquiries were being answered.
Held The plaintiff’s claim failed.
The term “vicinity” had no graspable meaning unless one turned to the reason for using the word. It could only bear a sufficiently clear meaning by considering the risk of physical instability of any part of the property. The defendant did not reveal the existence of the two adits in 1985, although they knew of their existence and took them to be in the positions marked in 1992, because it was believed that they posed no physical risk, and that “vicinity” was so limited as a matter of practice in answering inquiries at that time. The defendant was not under a duty in 1985 to disclose the existence of the adits. It may have been the case that some purchasers, lenders or their insurers might have been deterred by a shaft or an adit that posed no physical threat to a property. That did not mean that the defendant had breached its duty.
Jonathan Hirst QC and William Wood (instructed by Kent Jones & Done, of Stoke-on-Trent) appeared for the plaintiff; Stephen Grime QC and Ruth Trippier (instructed by Nabarro Nathanson, of Sheffield) appeared for the defendant.
Sarah Addenbrooke, barrister
