Colin Facey Boats Ltd v A Pank & Sons Ltd & Anor [1997] EWCA Civ 1299 (21 March 1997)

Colin Facey Boats Ltd v A Pank & Sons Ltd & Anor [1997] EWCA Civ 1299 (21 March 1997)

There was no contract between the plaintiffs and the first defendants for the electrical work, but the first defendants owed and breached a duty of care in recommending the second defendant, who was not sufficiently qualified for the complex task, resulting in foreseeable damage.

Citation
[1997] EWCA Civ 1299
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Colin Facey Boats Limited; First Defendant/appellant: A. Pank & Sons Limited; Second Defendant: D. J. Whitmarsh
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 March 1997
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court (liability Only)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Formation of Contract, Duty of Care in Recommendations, Negligent Misstatement, Liability for Subcontractors
Contract Law Tort Law Professional Negligence Formation of Contract Duty of Care in Recommendations Negligent Misstatement Liability for Subcontractors

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Colin Facey Boats Limited

Plaintiff/respondent

A. Pank & Sons Limited

First Defendant/appellant

D. J. Whitmarsh

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court (liability Only)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a contract existed between the plaintiffs and the first defendants for the electrical work
  2. 2 Whether the first defendants owed and breached a duty of care in recommending the second defendant

Ratio Decidendi

There was no contract between the plaintiffs and the first defendants for the electrical work, but the first defendants owed and breached a duty of care in recommending the second defendant, who was not sufficiently qualified for the complex task, resulting in foreseeable damage.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed

Orders

  • Appeal by first defendants dismissed
  • Respondents (plaintiffs) to have one half of their costs of the appeal