Payne & Ors v John Setchell Ltd [2001] EWHC 457 (TCC) (16 March 2001)

Payne & Ors v John Setchell Ltd [2001] EWHC 457 (TCC) (16 March 2001)

The defendant owed a duty of care to the original clients (Mr and Mrs Wright) in the investigation, design, and inspection of the foundations, but not to subsequent purchasers for pure economic loss. The certificates issued did not amount to warranties of fitness for purpose but were expressions of professional opinion. The claimants' causes of action accrued when the original clients acted on the advice, not when the claimants acquired the properties. Accordingly, the claims are time barred and no actionable duty of care was owed to the claimants under the Defective Premises Act or in negligence for the losses claimed.

Citation
[2001] EWHC 457 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Samuel Henry Payne; Claimant: Jillian Scotney; Claimant: Gary Mark Payne; Defendant: John Setchell Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 March 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
Claims dismissed
Legal Topics
Professional Negligence, Defective Premises Act 1972, Latent Damage Act 1986, Duty of Care, Limitation, Economic Loss
Tort Contract Construction Law Professional Negligence Defective Premises Act 1972 Latent Damage Act 1986 Duty of Care Limitation +1 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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samuel Henry Payne

Claimant

Jillian Scotney

Claimant

Gary Mark Payne

Claimant

John Setchell Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant owed a duty of care in negligence to the claimants regarding the design, investigation, and certification of foundations.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant breached statutory duty under the Defective Premises Act 1972.
  3. 3 Whether the claimants' causes of action are time barred under the Limitation Act 1980 and Latent Damage Act 1986.

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant owed a duty of care to the original clients (Mr and Mrs Wright) in the investigation, design, and inspection of the foundations, but not to subsequent purchasers for pure economic loss. The certificates issued did not amount to warranties of fitness for purpose but were expressions of professional opinion. The claimants' causes of action accrued when the original clients acted on the advice, not when the claimants acquired the properties. Accordingly, the claims are time barred and no actionable duty of care was owed to the claimants under the Defective Premises Act or in negligence for the losses claimed.

Court Disposition

Claims dismissed

Orders

  • No damages awarded to claimants
  • No indemnity granted