Nicolle & Anor v Saunders Morgan Harris Ltd

A marine surveyor who undertakes to advise whether a vessel is capable of MCA coding must exercise the reasonable skill and care expected of a reasonably competent marine surveyor. For a prototype or non-standard vessel, reliance on a builder’s unsupported assertion of compliance is insufficient. The surveyor should obtain and examine technical information, including relevant calculations, drawings, construction details and testing evidence. Where the surveyor voluntarily advises on Recreational Craft Directive compliance or the validity of a CE plate, a corresponding duty of care arises. Failure to identify that a vessel is neither codable nor compliant, causing the purchaser to accept it, may give rise to damages measured by the financial consequences of that acceptance, subject to deduction for residual value.

The claimants commissioned a rigid inflatable boat from a Guernsey builder for commercial, work and leisure use. The contract required compliance with relevant standards and contemplated MCA approval ready for coding. The defendants were engaged to inspect the vessel, advise on its conformity with the specification and assist with coding requirements.

The defendants treated the vessel as a standard production boat, relied on the builder’s assertions concerning ISO and Recreational Craft Directive compliance, failed to inspect an alleged technical file, and later represented that a purported CE plate was compliant. The boat was subsequently found not to be MCA codable or properly RCD compliant and had serious construction defects. The central issues were the scope and breach of the defendants’ duty of care and the resulting damages.

1. Duty and scope. The defendants’ obligations extended beyond a purely visual inspection. Their agreed role included assessing construction and structural strength for MCA coding and whether the vessel was capable of being coded once outstanding works were completed. Their subsequent advice on RCD compliance and the CE plate voluntarily expanded the scope of their assumed duty. They were required to exercise the reasonable skill and care expected of reasonably competent marine surveyors (paras [51], [55], [81]).
2. Non-standard vessel. The vessel was a prototype, not a standard production boat. A prudent surveyor should therefore have insisted on examining the technical construction file. The absence of such a file, together with the builder’s uncertainty about the applicable requirements, required further investigation rather than reliance on unsupported assurances (paras [60]–[64], [72]–[75]).
3. MCA coding criteria. Under the relevant MGN scheme, adequate construction and structural strength could be established through a recognised standard production boat with an appropriate history, satisfactory ISO 6185 testing, or full technical information submitted to and approved by the certifying authority. None of those routes was established. In the absence of drawings, construction photographs and calculations, a conscientious and rigorous examination, potentially including destructive examination after testing, would be required (paras [65]–[68], [91]–[92]).
4. Breach, causation and damages. The defendants negligently represented that the vessel was capable of MCA coding, that ISO standards had been complied with, and that the CE plate and RCD compliance were valid. The claimants would have rejected the boat had they known the true position. Judgment was therefore entered for the claimants in damages of £52,818.40, after deducting the boat’s present value of £10,000 (paras [88]–[90], [93]–[99]).