Sykes & Anor v Taylor-Rose & Anor

The appeal proceeded on the accepted basis that caveat emptor imposed no general duty on a vendor to disclose a property's history. A broad question in a seller's property information form asking whether the buyer may have a right to know information was subjective. It required the vendor's honest opinion, not an opinion supported by objectively reasonable grounds, unless the form said otherwise. The reference to a right to know confined the question to information the buyer might be entitled to know; it did not cover every fact affecting enjoyment or value. An honest negative answer was therefore neither a misrepresentation nor, on the stated duty, negligent. A discretionary costs order was also upheld where no error was shown.

Mr and Mrs Sykes bought a house without knowing that a murder had occurred there. After learning of its history from a television documentary, they sold the property at a loss and sued the vendors, Mr and Mrs Taylor-Rose, for damages.

The Leeds County Court dismissed the claim. It held that there was no duty to disclose the history and that the negative answer to question 13 of the Seller's Property Information Form was honestly given and therefore correct. The buyers appealed on misrepresentation and negligence. The vendors cross-appealed against the costs order. The central issues were the proper construction of question 13 and whether the costs order was within the trial judge's discretion.

Disposition. The appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed with costs. Permission to appeal to the House of Lords was refused.

1. Accepted legal context. The conclusion that the vendors were under no general legal duty to disclose the property's history was not challenged on appeal. The appeal was decided on the meaning and legal effect of the answer to question 13.
2. Construction of question 13. The question was directed to the vendors' state of mind and had to be given its ordinary meaning. It required an honestly held opinion about whether the buyer might have a right to know particular information. It did not imply that the opinion had to be based on objectively reasonable grounds. The form was intended for completion by vendors without legal training, and importing such a requirement would create uncertainty and encourage disputes. The reasoning in Economides v Commercial Assurance Co Plc [1998] QB 587 was pertinent by analogy. The suggested implication of reasonable investigation in William Sindall Plc v Cambridgeshire County Council [1994] 1 WLR 1016 did not govern this differently worded question.
3. Scope of the buyer's right to know. The words referring to a right to know confined the question to information the purchaser might be entitled to know. The word right could have a wider meaning than an accrued legal right, as illustrated by Gran Gelato Ltd v Richcliff (Group) Ltd [1992] 1 All ER 865, but it did not extend to every matter that might affect enjoyment or value. Since the answer was honestly given, it was not a misrepresentation.
4. Negligence. The court considered that, if the relevant duty was simply to give an honest answer, an honest answer could not be negligent. That reasoning was not necessary to the result, because the claim failed on construction of the question. The court expressly declined to endorse or determine the trial judge's separate conclusion on the third issue concerning the availability of damages.
5. Costs. The appellate court applied the approach in English v Emery Reimbold & Strick Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 605, [2002] 3 All ER 385. Where no express reasons are given, a rational explanation may be inferred. Under the Civil Procedure Rules, the trial judge could take the parties' conduct and procedural failures into account. The costs order was within the available discretion, even though another judge might have reached a different conclusion.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division). On 27 February 2004, the appellants' appeal and the respondents' cross-appeal were dismissed with costs. Permission to appeal to the House of Lords was refused.
2. Leeds County Court. On 8 July 2003, His Honour Judge Langan QC dismissed the claim for damages, finding no duty to disclose the property's history and construing the answer to question 13 as honestly given. He made the costs order challenged by the respondents' cross-appeal.