Claim for damages for fraudulent misrepresentation asserting that answers to preliminary enquiries on purchase were wrong. They alleged withholding of evidence of proposed large scale developments nearby. The defendants’ position was that their answers were true because the only development in prospect at the time of sale was one which did not affect the property and so was not required to be disclosed by them. However the defendant had filed an objection to the proposed development. Local Searches had referred to proposed developments and available plans.
Held: The defendants’ answers in the SPIF were not misrepresentations, and as a result the claim must fail. Although no formal planning applications had been submitted, the defendants had received documents relating to proposals. The court discussed the various levels of communications, parties and contents which might be disclosable, and in this case: ‘although the position reached in the JCS process at the date of exchange was such that a successful application to permit development was likely, that fact did not affect Oakwood Lodge because the development when it eventuated would not itself affect Oakwood Lodge.’
David Cooke HHJ
[2015] EWHC 2142 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales
Torts – Other
Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.550604