Sykes and another v Taylor-Rose and another
Peter Gibson and Mantell LJJ and Sir William Aldous
Sale of land — Seller’s property information form — Murder committed in house subsequently purchased by defendants — Whether vendor required to disclose history of property — Whether judge making correct costs order — Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed
The claimants owned a property that had been sold to them by the defendants. At the time of the sale, the defendants were aware that a murder had taken place at the property in the 1980s, but believed that they were not required to disclose the history of the house when they sold it. Accordingly, the defendants gave a negative reply to question 13 on the Sellers Property Information Form, which asked: “Is there any other information which you think the buyer may have a right to know?” The claimants remained unaware of the murder until they saw a television documentary, which inferred that the property still contained body parts. They immediately moved out and put the house on the market, revealing its history. They eventually sold the house for £75,000, although its market value without the history was estimated at £100,000.
The claimants brought an action for damages against the defendants. The trial was listed for 10 October 2002 but had to be adjourned because the defendants lodged witness statements only a short while before the hearing was due to take place. To indicate his displeasure at the lack of timely disclosure, the judge ordered the defendants to pay the costs incurred on an indemnity basis. At the trial, the judge held that the defendants were not under a duty to disclose the history of the property. On a proper construction of question 13, disclosure was required only of those facts that a reasonable person would have thought the buyer had a right to know. There was no doubt that the defendants had answered honestly, and the claimants had no cause of action against them. The judge made no order as to costs up to 10 October 2002, but ordered the claimants to pay the defendants’ costs following that date.
Sale of land — Seller’s property information form — Murder committed in house subsequently purchased by defendants — Whether vendor required to disclose history of property — Whether judge making correct costs order — Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed
The claimants owned a property that had been sold to them by the defendants. At the time of the sale, the defendants were aware that a murder had taken place at the property in the 1980s, but believed that they were not required to disclose the history of the house when they sold it. Accordingly, the defendants gave a negative reply to question 13 on the Sellers Property Information Form, which asked: “Is there any other information which you think the buyer may have a right to know?” The claimants remained unaware of the murder until they saw a television documentary, which inferred that the property still contained body parts. They immediately moved out and put the house on the market, revealing its history. They eventually sold the house for £75,000, although its market value without the history was estimated at £100,000.
The claimants brought an action for damages against the defendants. The trial was listed for 10 October 2002 but had to be adjourned because the defendants lodged witness statements only a short while before the hearing was due to take place. To indicate his displeasure at the lack of timely disclosure, the judge ordered the defendants to pay the costs incurred on an indemnity basis. At the trial, the judge held that the defendants were not under a duty to disclose the history of the property. On a proper construction of question 13, disclosure was required only of those facts that a reasonable person would have thought the buyer had a right to know. There was no doubt that the defendants had answered honestly, and the claimants had no cause of action against them. The judge made no order as to costs up to 10 October 2002, but ordered the claimants to pay the defendants’ costs following that date.
The claimants appealed against the finding on the issue of liability, contending that the defendants’ negative answer to question 13 constituted a misrepresentation. The defendants cross-appealed against the order for costs.
Held: The appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed.
The judge had been entitled to find that the defendants’ answer to question 13 did not amount to a misrepresentation. If the questions on the form had required the defendants to have reasonable grounds for their belief, it would have been necessary to determine what amounted to reasonable grounds in the variety of circumstances that could have arisen. Before answering the questions, vendors would need to seek professional advice. However, question 13 made no reference to a requirement for the belief to be based upon reasonable grounds, and there was no reason to import such an obligation. The question was intended to be answered by persons with no legal training and should therefore be given its normal and ordinary meaning. Since the veracity of the defendants’ reply was not in dispute, no misrepresentation had been made: Economides v Commercial Assurance Co plc [1998] QB 587 considered.
The judge had been entitled to make the costs order that he had. Although, as a general rule, the successful party would be entitled to its costs, the judge had a discretion to make a different order having regard, inter alia, to the conduct of the parties.
Clive Freedman QC and Daniel Lightman (instructed by Levi & Co, of Leeds) appeared for the claimants; Christopher Wilkins (instructed by Edwards Geldard, of Nottingham) appeared for the defendants.
Eileen O’Grady, barrister
