Defendant solicitors acting for plaintiffs – Plaintiffs purchasing plot of land – Plaintiffs discovering covenants preventing development – Whether solicitors negligent – Whether solicitors gave limited advice – Whether any limited advice discharged duty of care – Plaintiffs’ claim dismissed.
In March 1986 M located a building plot (the plot) between 45 and 47 Chadwick Road fronting Galton Road, Westcliff-on-Sea, Essex. The area was known as Chalkwell and was locally regarded as a sought-after residential location close to the seafront and the amenities of Southend. The plot was due to be auctioned unless sold previously by private treaty. In reliance upon the advice of M, the plaintiffs decided to try to purchase the plot and they instructed M, as their agent, to offer £29,000. The auctioneers accepted the plaintiffs’ offer. On the instructions of M, the defendants, a partnership of solicitors, were instructed to act for the plaintiffs in relation to the purchase of the plot. The second defendant signed a memorandum on the back of the auction catalogue, as solicitor to the purchasers, acknowledging that the plaintiffs had purchased the plot described in the “within special conditions” for the sum of £29,000. The special conditions included that the property was sold subject to covenants referred to in the property register. The contract was completed. However, it was subsequently discovered that the plot was subject to restrictive covenants dated 1920, 1922 and 1984 which prevented building. The plaintiffs issued proceedings claiming that they had not been told of the existence or effect of the covenants until after they had signed the contract, which bound them to complete, and therefore the defendants had been negligent. The defendants claimed that, although unaware of the existence of the covenant before contract, they had given M, as the plaintiffs’ agent, advice to the effect that it was the responsibility of the purchaser to satisfy himself that there was no obstruction to the proposed development.
Held The plaintiffs’ claim was dismissed.
1. The defendants had given the limited advice which they claimed to have given, which was sufficient to remind an experienced builder such as M of the possible existence of obstacles to the development. M had the plaintiffs’ full authority to proceed and, accordingly, the defendants had not been under a duty to tender the plaintiffs’ separate advice. Therefore, since the advice was adequate for M, it was also adequate for the plaintiffs.
2. In any event, even if the defendants had not discharged their duty and a more explicit warning had been given, M would none the less have instructed the defendants to proceed since he had no intention of carrying out further investigation before committing himself, and the plaintiffs, to the purchase.
Mark West (instructed by Church Bruce Hawkes Brasington & Phillips, of Gravesend) appeared for the plaintiffs; Ian Gatt (instructed by Mills & Reeve, of Norwich) appeared for the defendants.
