The High Court awarded David Walsh €350,000 in damages after finding that auctioneer Jones Lang LaSalle Limited negligently overstated the floor area of a Dublin commercial property in its sales brochure.
Mr Justice Quirke’s judgment, delivered on 24 January 2007, concerned No. 77 Upper Gardiner Street. Walsh bought the property in 2000 for IR£2,342,000, intending to let it to commercial tenants. The brochure stated that it had a total floor area of 23,057 square feet. The actual area was 21,248 square feet, an overstatement of 1,817 square feet.
Walsh claimed he relied on the brochure’s measurements when calculating his offer. The court accepted evidence that buyers of commercial property in Dublin did not generally measure floor areas before bidding, and that buyers commonly relied on precise measurements in brochures prepared by reputable auctioneers, subject to minor errors. The defendant argued that a disclaimer in the brochure, advising buyers to satisfy themselves as to the information, excluded liability.
The judge found that the brochure was directed at a limited and identifiable group of potential purchasers and that Walsh relied on its measurements. The disclaimer did not sufficiently warn buyers that the prominently stated, precise figures could be seriously inaccurate. The court held that the defendant owed Walsh a duty to take reasonable care to ensure the published floor area was accurate, and found that it breached that duty.
The defendant also alleged that Walsh contributed to his loss by failing to arrange a survey before contracting. The judge found no contributory negligence established by the evidence. The claim was confined to negligence and negligent misstatement; Walsh had not challenged the purchase contract or sought rescission or damages for misrepresentation or breach of contract.
On damages, the plaintiff’s expert estimated loss at €590,000, while the defendant’s expert put it at about €368,000. The court considered diminution in the property’s value the most appropriate measure and awarded €350,000. The judgment’s operative order was an award of damages in that amount; it did not award the higher sums claimed by either expert.