Claimants purchasing property from defendants — Defendants in dispute with neighbour — Defendants informing claimants that no such dispute in existence — Claimants alleging fraudulent misrepresentation — Claim allowed
The defendants and others were involved in a long-running dispute with a neighbour over the use of an access road. Other neighbours had taken legal advice that had temporarily resolved the situation.
The defendants sold their property to the claimants and assured them verbally, and in the seller’s property information form, that no disputes existed. After moving into the property, the claimants found themselves involved in quarrels with the same neighbour. The claimants maintained that, by deceiving them as to the true nature of their relationship with their neighbour, the defendants had induced them to buy the property by fraudulent misrepresentation.
The defendants argued that, at the time they sold the property, no disputed issues were outstanding, and that they could not be held responsible for the claimants’ subsequent dealings with the neighbour. The point at issue was whether the evidence showed that disputes had taken place during the defendants’ occupation of the house, and, if so, whether the defendants should have recognised that the nature of those disputes was such that they were required to disclose them on the seller’s property information form.
Held: The claim was allowed.
On the evidence, it was clear that the defendants were involved in a long-standing feud with their neighbour. That neighbour’s antagonism had led to a “running sore” of constant dispute with all the other neighbours, and was precisely the kind of information that should have been disclosed to a potential purchaser.
The defendants had knowingly made false representations, and had no reasonable grounds for believing that the representations were true. They were therefore guilty of fraudulent misrepresentation.
Andrew Parsons (instructed by Blake Lapthorne) appeared for the claimants; Mark Dubberry (instructed by Warner Goodman & Streat) appeared for the defendants.
Vivienne Lane, barrister
