Ward v. McMaster [1988] IESC 3 (10th May, 1988)

Ward v. McMaster [1988] IESC 3 (10th May, 1988)

Louth County Council owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, arising from the proximity of the parties and the foreseeability of harm, to ensure by proper valuation that the house was a good security for the loan. The Council breached this duty by failing to engage a competent valuer, and the plaintiff reasonably relied on the Council's valuation. The statutory context and the plaintiff's circumstances made it foreseeable that he would not obtain his own survey, and no public policy consideration justified denying liability.

Citation
[1988] IESC 3
Parties
Plaintiff: Denis Ward; Plaintiff: Anne Ward; Defendant: Patrick McMaster; Defendant: Louth County Council; Defendant: Nicholas Hardy and Company Limited
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; liability in negligence against Louth County Council upheld.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Liability of Public Authorities, Housing Law, Statutory Duties
Tort Law Public Law Negligence Duty of Care Liability of Public Authorities Housing Law Statutory Duties

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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Denis Ward

Plaintiff

Anne Ward

Plaintiff

Patrick McMaster

Defendant

Louth County Council

Defendant

Nicholas Hardy and Company Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Louth County Council owed a duty of care in negligence to the plaintiff in the valuation of a house for a statutory loan scheme
  2. 2 Whether the Council's breach of statutory duty gave rise to private law liability
  3. 3 Whether the relationship between the plaintiff and the Council was sufficiently proximate to impose a duty of care

Ratio Decidendi

Louth County Council owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, arising from the proximity of the parties and the foreseeability of harm, to ensure by proper valuation that the house was a good security for the loan. The Council breached this duty by failing to engage a competent valuer, and the plaintiff reasonably relied on the Council's valuation. The statutory context and the plaintiff's circumstances made it foreseeable that he would not obtain his own survey, and no public policy consideration justified denying liability.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; liability in negligence against Louth County Council upheld.

Orders

  • Louth County Council remains liable in negligence to the first plaintiff.
  • No change to the High Court's apportionment of contribution between defendants.