Power Magnetics and Electronic Systems Ltd. v Wood Goldstraw & Yorath & Ors [2002] EWHC 2912 (TCC) (22 October 2002)

Power Magnetics and Electronic Systems Ltd. v Wood Goldstraw & Yorath & Ors [2002] EWHC 2912 (TCC) (22 October 2002)

The claim fails because two members of the management buy-out team (Mr Taylor and Mr Sammons) had knowledge of the presence and potential danger of asbestos in the office building ceiling voids prior to the acquisition. This knowledge is sufficient to preclude the claimant from recovering for negligent misstatement or breach of duty by the defendants, regardless of any breach in failing to inspect and report on the asbestos.

Citation
[2002] EWHC 2912 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Power Magnetics and Electronic Systems Limited; First Defendant: Wood Goldstraw & Yorath; Second Defendant: J. Cliffe; Third Defendant: A. E. Whitfield
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 October 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil (negligence, Professional Negligence) / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligent Misstatement, Duty of Care, Breach of Duty, Causation, Damages, Management Buy Out, Asbestos Liability, Building Surveys, Reliance, Knowledge of Defect
Tort Law Professional Negligence Contract Law Commercial Law Negligent Misstatement Duty of Care Breach of Duty Causation +6 more

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Power Magnetics and Electronic Systems Limited

Claimant

Wood Goldstraw & Yorath

First Defendant

J. Cliffe

Second Defendant

A. E. Whitfield

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (negligence, Professional Negligence) / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants (WGY and A & J) owed a duty of care to the claimant regarding the inspection and reporting of asbestos in the office building ceiling voids.
  2. 2 Whether the defendants breached their duty by failing to inspect and report on the presence of asbestos.
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's management team had knowledge of the asbestos prior to the acquisition, precluding recovery.

Ratio Decidendi

The claim fails because two members of the management buy-out team (Mr Taylor and Mr Sammons) had knowledge of the presence and potential danger of asbestos in the office building ceiling voids prior to the acquisition. This knowledge is sufficient to preclude the claimant from recovering for negligent misstatement or breach of duty by the defendants, regardless of any breach in failing to inspect and report on the asbestos.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed