Patchett & Anor v Swimming Pool & Allied Trades Association Ltd

Patchett & Anor v Swimming Pool & Allied Trades Association Ltd

SPATA did not owe a duty of care to the claimants for statements made on its website because, when read as a whole, the website urged potential customers to make further inquiries and obtain additional information before relying on the representations. There was insufficient proximity and no objective assumption of responsibility, and it would not be fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care in these circumstances.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Gary Patchett; Claimant/appellant: Karen Patchett; Defendant/respondent: Swimming Pool & Allied Trades Association Ltd (SPATA)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligent Misstatement, Duty of Care, Assumption of Responsibility, Economic Loss, Misrepresentation, Trade Association Liability
Tort Law Professional Negligence Negligent Misstatement Duty of Care Assumption of Responsibility Economic Loss Misrepresentation Trade Association 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gary Patchett

Claimant/appellant

Karen Patchett

Claimant/appellant

Swimming Pool & Allied Trades Association Ltd (SPATA)

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether SPATA owed a duty of care to the claimants for statements made on its website
  2. 2 Whether the representations on the website amounted to negligent misstatements giving rise to liability for economic loss

Ratio Decidendi

SPATA did not owe a duty of care to the claimants for statements made on its website because, when read as a whole, the website urged potential customers to make further inquiries and obtain additional information before relying on the representations. There was insufficient proximity and no objective assumption of responsibility, and it would not be fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care in these circumstances.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.