Reeman & Anor v Department Of Transport & Anor [1997] EWCA Civ 1355 (26th March, 1997)

Reeman & Anor v Department Of Transport & Anor [1997] EWCA Civ 1355 (26th March, 1997)

The Department of Transport did not owe a duty of care in negligence to the plaintiffs as purchasers of the vessel for pure economic loss arising from negligent certification. The statutory scheme was aimed at promoting safety at sea, not protecting commercial interests of purchasers. The plaintiffs were not members of an identifiable class at the time of certification, and it was not fair, just and reasonable to impose such a duty on the Department.

Citation
[1997] EWCA Civ 1355
Parties
Respondent/plaintiff: Paul Reeman; Respondent/plaintiff: Vivienne Mary Reeman; Appellant/first Defendant: Department of Transport; Second Defendant: West Marine Surveyors & Consultants; Third Defendant: Richard Primrose Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Appeal From High Court Judgment on Preliminary Issue of Liability
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment for plaintiffs set aside.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Economic Loss, Statutory Duty, Duty of Care, Public Authority Liability
Tort Law Public Law Negligence Economic Loss Statutory Duty Duty of Care Public Authority Liability

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 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Reeman

Respondent/plaintiff

Vivienne Mary Reeman

Respondent/plaintiff

Department of Transport

Appellant/first Defendant

West Marine Surveyors & Consultants

Second Defendant

Richard Primrose Ltd

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Appeal From High Court Judgment on Preliminary Issue of Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Department of Transport owed a duty of care in negligence to purchasers of a vessel who suffered pure economic loss as a result of negligent certification under statutory safety regulations.

Ratio Decidendi

The Department of Transport did not owe a duty of care in negligence to the plaintiffs as purchasers of the vessel for pure economic loss arising from negligent certification. The statutory scheme was aimed at promoting safety at sea, not protecting commercial interests of purchasers. The plaintiffs were not members of an identifiable class at the time of certification, and it was not fair, just and reasonable to impose such a duty on the Department.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment for plaintiffs set aside.

Orders

  • Finding of liability against Department of Transport reversed.
  • Damages to plaintiffs not awarded.