Negligence — Conveyance of land–Solicitor failing to discover public footpath — Liability conceded — Measure of damages — Whether some conveyancing costs should be allowed — Whether damages for distress
In January 1983 the plaintiff agreed to buy (subject to contract) Ash Farm, Burcott, near Leighton Buzzard, for £130,000. The property consisted of a large modern bungalow, a four-acre garden and some 26 acres of pasture. The sale particulars stated that there were no public rights of way through the property. The defendants acted as solicitors for the plaintiff and made the usual searches and enquiries. In their searches and enquiries, they failed to ask specifically about the existence of public rights of way and so received no answer on that point. However, a reply to a further question on the form used for local searches and enquiries mentioned the existence of a footpath on adjoining land, and it was not appreciated by the defendants that this path might continue across the property purchased by the plaintiff. The plaintiff duly completed the purchase. The existence of the public footpath was not apparent on the ground until a sign was erected on the adjoining land some time in 1985.
Although the defendants admitted liability in negligence for not discovering the right of way, they disputed the damages claimed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed damages for the difference between the purchase price and the value of the property subject to the public footpath; for the conveyancing fee; for the effect of the footpath on the value added to the property by the construction of various buildings by the plaintiff; for distress; and for interest.
Held It was a general principle in awarding damages to put the plaintiff back into the position he would have been in if there had been no breach of duty: H Parsons (Livestock) Ltd v Uttley Ingbam & Co Ltd [1978] QB 791. On the evidence, the property had a value of £122,000 in March 1983 when the plaintiff purchased it; he was entitled to £8,000 as the proper sum for his loss under this head. A percentage reduction in the conveyancing fee should be allowed, as the plaintiff had received some value for the services provided: Piper v Daybell, Court-Cooper & Co (1969) 210 EG 1047. No sum should be allowed for the effect of the footpath on the value added to the property by the plaintiff’s new buildings, as this value was fully reflected in the increase in value of the whole property. No damages were awarded for general distress, as the loss of privacy was covered by the first head. Interest was awarded on the sums due.
Heywood v Wellers
[1976] QB 446 considered.
Leolin Price QC and Grant Crawford (instructed by Cornish & Co, of Ilford) appeared for the plaintiff; and Christopher Semken (instructed by Reynolds Porter Chamberlain) appeared for the defendants.
