Agency - 1995

The case shown here are derived from the lawindexpro case law database. lawindexpro is a low cost case law database, with over 130,000 case listings, and over 95,000 links to full text judgments. The free service below shows the core information on the case, but is restricted in several ways. A small proportion of cases do allow access to the full lawindexpro information. These cases are selected at random, and may be different on your next visit. The active links through to lawindexpro are extremely powerful allowing full access to all linked cases.  

This page lists 3 cases, and was prepared on 04 October 2008.

Sampson and Others -v- Wilson and Others
19 Apr 1995 CA	Landlord and Tenant, Agency	Casemap 1 Citers
	A landlord's estate management agent was not jointly liable with the Landlord for damages for acts of harassment of the tenant committed by the landlord.
	Statute References omitted

Halifax Mortgage Services Ltd (Formerly BNP Mortgages Ltd) -v- Stepsky and Another [1996] Ch 207
1 Dec 1995 CA Morritt LJ	Agency, Legal Professions, Banking	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The knowledge of a solicitor, acting for both the borrower and the lender, of the lay clients intentions as regards the future use of the loan, is not to be imputed to the lender, even though the solicitor acts for both parties, and is the lender's agent. Morritt LJ discussed section 199: "Counsel for the wife submitted that it did not apply as the knowledge came to the knowledge of the solicitors for the lender as such when they were instructed to act on behalf of the lender on 19 June 1990. In the case of the wife it was submitted that the solicitors were not instructed by her as "agents to know." I do not accept either of these submissions. In my view the section has to be applied in accordance with its terms to the facts of this case. There is no doubt that the information as to the true purpose of the remortgage loan imparted by the husband came to the knowledge of the solicitors on 12 June 1990 as the solicitors for the husband and wife alone for they were not instructed to act for the lenders until 19 June at the earliest. That knowledge once acquired remained with the solicitors and cannot be treated as coming to them again when they were instructed on behalf of the lenders. As counsel for the wife accepted, their knowledge cannot be treated as divided or disposed of and reacquired in that way. The conclusion seems to me to be inescapable, namely that knowledge of the relevant matters facts or things did not come to the solicitors as the solicitors for the lenders. Accordingly it did not come to them "as such." It was not disputed that the lender is a purchaser within the definition contained in section 205(1)(xxi) of the Law of Property Act 1925. Consequently section 199(1)(ii)...b) precludes the solicitors' knowledge of the relevant matters or facts being imputed to the lender."
	Statute References omitted

McCullagh -v- Lane Fox and Partners Ltd [1996] 1 EGLR 35
22 Dec 1995 CA Hobhouse LJ	Agency, Professional Negligence	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	There was no duty in negligent mis-statement from a vendor's estate agent to a purchaser for that purchaser's financial loss after proceeding without first obtaining a survey relying upon the agent. Hobhouse LJ "On the Sunday, Mr. Scott knew, or ought to have known, that his representation was likely to be relied on by Mr. McCullagh. However, he also knew that Mr. McCullagh had the Lane Fox particulars which included both the relevant statement and the disclaimer. In my judgment, the result of this is that the element of proximity was negatived. A reasonable person, appreciating that the statement which he was proposing to rely upon was a statement contained in the particulars and the fact that those particulars also stated that ´all statements contained in these particulars as to this property are made without responsibility on the part of Lane Fox ...' would understand that there was no assumption of responsibility by Lane Fox. This understanding would be reinforced by paras 3, 4 and 5 of the disclaimer. In my judgment, the disclaimer puts the present case on all fours with the actual decision in Hedley Byrne as explained earlier."