Hunt v Optima (Cambridge) Ltd & Ors

Hunt v Optima (Cambridge) Ltd & Ors

The court held that Strutt & Parker did not owe a duty of care in tort to purchasers who received certificates after completion, as there was no reliance on an existing statement at the time of purchase. The certificates did not amount to collateral warranties, as they lacked the necessary language of promise and consideration. Limitation barred the claims where actionable damage and knowledge predated the claim. The appeal was allowed and the claims dismissed, except for those not appealed (Mr and Mrs Sahi).

Parties
Claimant: Jonathan Paul Hunt; Claimant: Alan Bedwell; Claimant: Toshi Sahi; Claimant: Penny Sahi; Claimant: Nicola Ransome; Claimant: Diana Wyatt; Claimant: Michael Peace; Claimant: Mary Peace; Defendant: Optima (Cambridge) Limited; Defendant: Strutt & Parker (a Firm); Defendant: Mr S. Egford; Defendant: Strutt & Parker LLP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From First Instance Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed, claims dismissed except for Mr and Mrs Sahi
Legal Topics
Negligent Misstatement, Collateral Warranty, Limitation of Actions, Duty of Care, Professional Liability
Tort Law Contract Law Professional Negligence Negligent Misstatement Collateral Warranty Limitation of Actions Duty of Care Professional 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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jonathan Paul Hunt

Claimant

Alan Bedwell

Claimant

Toshi Sahi

Claimant

Penny Sahi

Claimant

Nicola Ransome

Claimant

Diana Wyatt

Claimant

Michael Peace

Claimant

Mary Peace

Claimant

Optima (Cambridge) Limited

Defendant

Strutt & Parker (a Firm)

Defendant

Mr S. Egford

Defendant

Strutt & Parker LLP

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From First Instance Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Strutt & Parker owed a duty of care in tort to purchasers who received certificates after completion
  2. 2 Whether the certificates constituted collateral warranties
  3. 3 Whether claimants relied on the certificates in entering into purchase contracts

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that Strutt & Parker did not owe a duty of care in tort to purchasers who received certificates after completion, as there was no reliance on an existing statement at the time of purchase. The certificates did not amount to collateral warranties, as they lacked the necessary language of promise and consideration. Limitation barred the claims where actionable damage and knowledge predated the claim. The appeal was allowed and the claims dismissed, except for those not appealed (Mr and Mrs Sahi).

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed, claims dismissed except for Mr and Mrs Sahi

Orders

  • Claims by all claimants except Mr and Mrs Sahi dismissed
  • No liability found against Strutt & Parker or Mr Egford for negligent misstatement, collateral warranty, or duty of care in inspection