The Supreme Court allowed an estate agent’s appeal against a finding that it was liable for inaccurate measurements in a property sales brochure, holding that the agent had not assumed responsibility to the buyer for the accuracy of those details.
In a judgment delivered on 1 June 2017, O’Donnell J. said the case had to be analysed as one of negligent misstatement. The brochure was generally available to prospective purchasers, and its disclaimer formed part of the evidence on whether the agent had undertaken responsibility for the information. It was not to be treated as a contractual clause excluding an existing duty of care.
The case concerned 77 Upper Gardiner Street, Dublin 1, which David Walsh bought in 2000 after receiving a brochure from Jones Lang Lasalle Limited, acting for the vendor. The brochure stated that the premises had a total area of 23,057 sq ft. A later measurement established the area as 21,248 sq ft, an overall discrepancy of about 8 percent.
Walsh said he used the brochure’s figures in a rough calculation of the property’s potential rental income and value before bidding £2.342 million. The High Court found the agent liable for negligent misstatement and awarded Walsh €350,000 in damages in 2007. The agent appealed the liability finding only; the amount of damages was not before the Supreme Court.
The brochure said that care had been taken in preparing its particulars, that they were believed to be correct but were not warranted, and that intending purchasers or lessees should satisfy themselves as to the information’s correctness. O’Donnell J. concluded that, read in context, the disclaimer told prospective buyers that Jones Lang Lasalle did not accept responsibility for inaccuracies and that buyers should verify details important to them.
The Court rejected the argument that Wildgust v. Bank of Ireland had removed the need to consider assumption of responsibility in negligent misstatement cases. O’Donnell J. said that decision concerned unusual circumstances and reliance on an assurance made to a bank; it did not establish a unified approach to negligent acts and statements. The brochure’s general circulation also raised the prospect of claims by different potential buyers, unlike the limited circumstances in Wildgust.
The judgment states that the appeal was allowed because, on the established test, the plaintiff should not have succeeded. It does not set out a separate formal order in the supplied text. The source identifies O’Donnell J. as the author of the judgment and lists four other Supreme Court judges, but provides no separate opinions or voting breakdown.