Niprose Investments Limited & Ors v Vincents Solicitors Limited
[2024] EWHC 801 (Ch)
Martin Melia & Anor v Tamlyn and Son Limited
25 November 2024
[2024] EWHC 3002 (Ch)
High Court
Two teachers hired surveyors to convert an old building. The surveyors said it was okay to make the building much bigger, even though the permit said no. The teachers did it, got in trouble, and sued the surveyors. The court said the surveyors were at fault and had to pay the teachers for the losses, except for half the cost related to the teachers' own later lies to cover up what happened.
Key Facts
- •Career teachers, the Melians, sought to convert an outbuilding into residential accommodation.
- •They engaged Tamlyn & Son Limited, chartered surveyors, for planning and building regulation services.
- •Planning permission was granted, with a condition prohibiting demolition and replacement.
- •The surveyors advised the Melians that alterations exceeding the permitted scope would be acceptable.
- •The Melians demolished the outbuilding and began construction of a larger structure.
- •A complaint led to the works being stopped, and retrospective planning permission was refused.
- •The Melians sued the surveyors for negligence and breach of contract.
- •The surveyors defended on the grounds of illegality and the Melians' dishonest intent.
Legal Principles
Vicarious liability of an employer for the acts of its employee.
Case Law
Illegality as a defense to a claim.
Case Law
Concurrent duties in contract and tort.
Case Law
Breach of contract and negligence; duty of care.
Case Law
Causation in negligence and breach of contract.
Case Law
Scope of duty in negligence.
Case Law
Measure of damages for breach of contract.
Case Law
Contributory negligence.
Case Law
Adverse inferences from the failure to call a witness.
Case Law
Outcomes
The Defendant (Tamlyn & Son Limited) is liable to the Claimants (Melians) for losses arising from breaches of duty in both contracts.
The judge found that the surveyor, Venton, acting for the Defendant, negligently advised the Claimants, leading them to undertake unlawful works. The judge rejected the Defendant's illegality defense, finding that the Claimants' actions were primarily a consequence of the surveyor's misleading advice. The judge also drew an adverse inference from the Defendant's failure to call Venton as a witness.
50% liability for the Defendant in relation to losses incurred after the discovery of the unlawful works.
The judge acknowledged that the Claimants were partially responsible for the misleading representations made to the council after the unlawful construction was discovered.
Similar Cases
Geoffrey Simmonds, R (on the application of Geoffrey Simmonds) v Blaby District Council & Ors
[2023] EWHC 2217 (KB)
Perdita Martell v Grzegorz Roszkowski & Ors
[2024] EWHC 840 (TCC)
Richard Thomas Barnes v The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors
[2023] EWHC 1990 (Ch)
Anna Christie v Mary Ward Legal Centre & Anor
[2023] EWHC 1814 (KB)