Image from Google Jackets

Beresforde and Another v Chesterfield BC and Another

Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (1989) 39 EG 176-178(2)Publication details: 1989Subject(s): Summary: CA 10 July 1989. Appeal by purchaser (B) from decision by Official Referee, who struck out a claim against the Woolwich Equitable Building Society , (W), on the grounds that it showed no reasonable cause of action. B commenced an action for negligence against W and the local council (C), after serious defects were discovered in a house purchased by B. The valuation report from an independent firm of surveyors, instructed by W, was headed with W`s name and though it mentioned the fact that the house was constructed on a site affected by coal mine workings, it assumed that the house had been built on a concrete raft foundation. The Official Referee struck out B`s claim, stating that W could not be liable for the negligence of its independent contractor - the firm of surveyors. B appealed to CA, submitting that the heading of the report with W`s name and the reference to W`s valuer conveyed the impression that the report was W`s report and as such it negligently misrepresented the value
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS41587 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 31052-1001

CA 10 July 1989. Appeal by purchaser (B) from decision by Official Referee, who struck out a claim against the Woolwich Equitable Building Society , (W), on the grounds that it showed no reasonable cause of action. B commenced an action for negligence against W and the local council (C), after serious defects were discovered in a house purchased by B. The valuation report from an independent firm of surveyors, instructed by W, was headed with W`s name and though it mentioned the fact that the house was constructed on a site affected by coal mine workings, it assumed that the house had been built on a concrete raft foundation. The Official Referee struck out B`s claim, stating that W could not be liable for the negligence of its independent contractor - the firm of surveyors. B appealed to CA, submitting that the heading of the report with W`s name and the reference to W`s valuer conveyed the impression that the report was W`s report and as such it negligently misrepresented the value