SPS Groundworks & Building Limited v Ms Satvinder Kaur Mahil

SPS Groundworks & Building Limited v Ms Satvinder Kaur Mahil

The Respondent failed to properly discharge the equitable duty of disclosure by not specifically bringing the Overage Clause (a defect in title) to the Appellant's attention in the auction particulars or by specific notice; reference in the legal pack alone was insufficient. The Appellant was entitled to assume the duty of disclosure had been complied with. The Judge erred in applying caveat emptor to a defect in title and in finding that the disclosure was adequate.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: SPS Groundworks & Building Limited; Defendant/appellant: Ms Satvinder Kaur Mahil
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 February 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From County Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Misrepresentation, Duty of Disclosure, Defects in Title, Auction Sales, Pleading Requirements
Property Law Contract Law Misrepresentation Duty of Disclosure Defects in Title Auction Sales Pleading Requirements

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SPS Groundworks & Building Limited

Claimant/respondent

Ms Satvinder Kaur Mahil

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From County Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Respondent fulfilled its duty to disclose a defect in title by including it in the legal pack only
  2. 2 Whether the representations made about the property were honestly held opinions
  3. 3 Whether the Appellant relied on the alleged misrepresentations

Ratio Decidendi

The Respondent failed to properly discharge the equitable duty of disclosure by not specifically bringing the Overage Clause (a defect in title) to the Appellant's attention in the auction particulars or by specific notice; reference in the legal pack alone was insufficient. The Appellant was entitled to assume the duty of disclosure had been complied with. The Judge erred in applying caveat emptor to a defect in title and in finding that the disclosure was adequate.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed