Chief Land Registrar v Caffrey & Co [2016] EWHC 161 (Ch) (03 February 2016)

Chief Land Registrar v Caffrey & Co [2016] EWHC 161 (Ch) (03 February 2016)

The defendant did not owe a duty of care in negligence to the bank, as there was no sufficient proximity or assumption of responsibility, and the interests were opposed. However, the defendant owed a duty of care to the claimant in respect of negligent misrepresentation, having made representations which it knew or ought to have known would be relied upon by the claimant, and default judgment is granted on this basis.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 161 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Chief Land Registrar; Defendant: Caffrey & Co
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Default Judgment Application / Judgment on Application for Default Judgment
Outcome
Default judgment granted in part; claim for negligence dismissed, claim for negligent misrepresentation succeeds.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Negligent Misrepresentation, Land Registration, Professional Duty
Tort Property Law Negligence Negligent Misrepresentation Land Registration Professional Duty

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chief Land Registrar

Claimant

Caffrey & Co

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Default Judgment Application / Judgment on Application for Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant owed a duty of care in negligence to the bank
  2. 2 Whether the defendant owed a duty of care to the claimant in respect of negligent misrepresentation

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant did not owe a duty of care in negligence to the bank, as there was no sufficient proximity or assumption of responsibility, and the interests were opposed. However, the defendant owed a duty of care to the claimant in respect of negligent misrepresentation, having made representations which it knew or ought to have known would be relied upon by the claimant, and default judgment is granted on this basis.

Court Disposition

Default judgment granted in part; claim for negligence dismissed, claim for negligent misrepresentation succeeds.

Orders

  • Default judgment for claimant on negligent misrepresentation; damages to be assessed.
  • Claim for negligence dismissed.