Machin v Adams & Ors [1995] EWCA Civ 3 (13th September, 1995)

Machin v Adams & Ors [1995] EWCA Civ 3 (13th September, 1995)

Mr Bannister did not owe a duty of care to Mrs Machin because his letter of 13th January 1993 was not intended as a final certificate, he did not know the contractual arrangements or the purpose for which the letter would be used, and Mrs Machin did not in fact rely on the letter in a way that caused her detriment. The circumstances did not establish the necessary proximity or assumption of responsibility to impose a duty of care in tort.

Citation
[1995] EWCA Civ 3
Parties
Respondent/plaintiff: Mrs Machin; Appellant/third Defendant: Mr Bannister; First and Second Defendants: Mr and Mrs Adams
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Appeal From Judgment on Preliminary Issues After Trial Before Official Referee
Outcome
Appeal allowed; claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligent Misstatement, Duty of Care, Economic Loss, Hedley Byrne Principle, Reliance, Assumption of Responsibility
Tort Law Professional Negligence Negligent Misstatement Duty of Care Economic Loss Hedley Byrne Principle Reliance Assumption of Responsibility

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Machin

Respondent/plaintiff

Mr Bannister

Appellant/third Defendant

Mr and Mrs Adams

First and Second Defendants

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Appeal From Judgment on Preliminary Issues After Trial Before Official Referee

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Bannister owed a duty of care in tort to Mrs Machin in respect of his letter of 13th January 1993
  2. 2 Whether Mrs Machin relied on that letter in agreeing to complete the purchase of the property subject to a reduction of £25,000 in the purchase price

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Bannister did not owe a duty of care to Mrs Machin because his letter of 13th January 1993 was not intended as a final certificate, he did not know the contractual arrangements or the purpose for which the letter would be used, and Mrs Machin did not in fact rely on the letter in a way that caused her detriment. The circumstances did not establish the necessary proximity or assumption of responsibility to impose a duty of care in tort.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; claim dismissed

Orders

  • Respondent's claim against appellant dismissed
  • Application for leave to appeal to the House of Lords refused