Patchett & Anor v Swimming Pool & Allied Trades Association Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 717 (15 July 2009)

Patchett & Anor v Swimming Pool & Allied Trades Association Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 717 (15 July 2009)

SPATA did not owe a duty of care to the claimants regarding statements on its website because the website, when read as a whole, urged potential customers to make further enquiries by obtaining an information pack. The relationship lacked sufficient proximity, and it was not fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care in these circumstances. The claimants' reliance without further enquiry was unreasonable.

Citation
[2009] EWCA Civ 717
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 / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Birmingham County Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligent Misstatement, Duty of Care, Economic Loss, Assumption of Responsibility, Misrepresentation on Websites
Tort Law Negligent Misstatement Duty of Care Economic Loss Assumption of Responsibility Misrepresentation on Websites

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 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 / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Birmingham County Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether SPATA owed a duty of care to the claimants in respect of statements made on its website
  2. 2 Whether there was sufficient proximity and it was fair, just and reasonable to impose such a duty
  3. 3 Whether the claimants were contributorily negligent

Ratio Decidendi

SPATA did not owe a duty of care to the claimants regarding statements on its website because the website, when read as a whole, urged potential customers to make further enquiries by obtaining an information pack. The relationship lacked sufficient proximity, and it was not fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care in these circumstances. The claimants' reliance without further enquiry was unreasonable.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed