Nicolle & Anor v Saunders Morgan Harris Ltd [2008] EWHC 1518 (TCC) (02 July 2008)

Nicolle & Anor v Saunders Morgan Harris Ltd [2008] EWHC 1518 (TCC) (02 July 2008)

The defendant surveyor was negligent in advising the claimants that the boat was MCA codable and RCD compliant without proper investigation or basis, failed to inspect the technical file, and misrepresented the compliance status of the boat. The claimants relied on this advice to their detriment, accepting a boat that was not compliant and suffered financial loss as a result. The defendant breached the duty of care owed to the claimants.

Citation
[2008] EWHC 1518 (TCC)
Parties
Claimants: Martin Nicolle and Fiona Nicolle; Defendants: Saunders Morgan Harris Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 July 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the claimants
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Negligent Misstatement, Marine Surveying, Breach of Contract, Damages
Professional Negligence Contract Law Duty of Care Negligent Misstatement Marine Surveying Breach of Contract Damages

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Martin Nicolle and Fiona Nicolle

Claimants

Saunders Morgan Harris Limited

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant surveyor owed and breached a duty of care to the claimants in relation to the inspection and certification of a RIB boat.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant negligently represented that the boat was MCA codable and RCD compliant.
  3. 3 Whether the claimants relied on the defendant's advice and suffered loss as a result.

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant surveyor was negligent in advising the claimants that the boat was MCA codable and RCD compliant without proper investigation or basis, failed to inspect the technical file, and misrepresented the compliance status of the boat. The claimants relied on this advice to their detriment, accepting a boat that was not compliant and suffered financial loss as a result. The defendant breached the duty of care owed to the claimants.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the claimants

Orders

  • Defendant to pay damages to the claimants in the sum of £52,818.40