Hunt & Ors v Optima (Cambridge) Ltd & Ors  EWCA Civ 714
Overturning a judgment of the Technology & Construction Court, the Court of Appeal has decided that architects’ certificates provided after the purchase of property could not be the foundation for negligent misstatement claims. The case restores the legal position limiting the duties of professional advisors. It also provides a helpful summary of the key components of claims against professionals, especially where consultants such as architects or surveyors are providing reports that are likely to be relied on by third parties, like purchasers, lenders and developers.
The Claimants had bought flats on long leases. Later, serious defects were identified, and the Claimants sued the developer and a firm of architects for negligent misstatement. The developer had instructed the architects to inspect and certify the flats had been built to meet building regulations and that there were no defects. The reports were for consideration by the purchasers and their lenders within the conveyancing process. However, most of the certificates were not actually signed off until after exchange of contracts and for most of the purchasers, after completion.
The judge at first instance held that the architects owed two freestanding duties of care in
- carrying out the inspection of the flats with an architect’s skill and care
- preparing accurate certificates.
This put a duty of care on the architects during the assessment stage, but before any report or representations. The judge found it no obstacle that the signed certificates were received by the purchasers only after exchange of contracts. The case appeared to widen professional duties more generally than previously understood.
Court Of Appeal’s Decision
Clarke LJ in giving the leading judgment said the earlier decision
‘…takes inadequate account of certain key principles….. reliance must follow representation…’.
The CoA found that both reliance on the statement must be proved and further, that loss was suffered in consequence of the reliance. Here however, the purchasers could not have relied on the certificates when they exchanged contracts, because the certificates had not been completed by then.
Clarke LJ said that this
“would involve imposing …. a duty to inspect arising out of statements which, at the time when the duty arose, they had not made“.
There was no separate duty owed to the purchasers for “negligent inspection”.
Although the architects plainly owed contractual duties to its client, the developer, there was no implied contractual or tortious duty between the architects and third parties. The certificate itself stated that it was not a promise or guarantee. However, it is salutary to note that the architects did not apply for permission to appeal the awards made against them in favour of those purchasers who did receive certificates prior to proceeding with their purchase.
- The previous understanding of the law has been reinstated. For liability to be established, a claimant has to prove that it suffered losses directly as a result of relying on a professional’s negligent misstatement.
- The court was reluctant to imply collateral warranties between professionals and third parties.
- Professional firms’ Terms & Conditions should specify that any duty is limited to providing the final report and does not extend to preparatory work.
- Solicitors acting for purchasers (and lenders) must ensure such certificates or reports are finalised and signed before any contracts are exchanged or loan completedn completed.