Alan Ernest Sykes and Susan Sykes v James Walker Taylor-Rose and Alison Claire Taylor-Rose
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE PETER GIBSON,Sir William Aldous,SIR WILLIAM ALDOUS,Lord Justice Peter Gibson,LORD JUSTICE MANTELL |
| Judgment Date | 27 February 2004 |
| Neutral Citation | [2004] EWCA Civ 299 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | B2/2003/1639 |
| Date | 27 February 2004 |
[2004] EWCA Civ 299
Lord Justice Peter Gibson
Lord Justice Mantell
Sir William Aldous
B2/2003/1639
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM LEEDS COUNTY COURT
(HIS HONOUR JUDGE LANGAN QC)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London, WC2
MR C FREEDMAN QC and MR D LIGHTMAN (instructed by Messrs Levi & Co, Leeds LS1 2JJ) appeared on behalf of the Appellants
MR C WILKINS (instructed by Messrs Edwards Geldard, Nottingham NG1 5EL) appeared on behalf of the Respondents
I will ask Sir William Aldous to give the first judgment.
This is an appeal by Mr and Mrs Sykes against an order of His Honour Judge Langan QC of 8th July 2003 which dismissed their claim for damages.
The foundation for the proceedings is the events that happened in the early 1980s at 16 Stillwell Drive, Sandal, Wakefield. That house was at the time owned by Dr and Mrs Perera. He was a dental biologist working at the University of Leeds. They had living with them a 13-year-old girl called Nilanthie. She went missing and in 1985 it transpired that she was dead. The police investigation found that parts of her body were in Dr Perera's laboratory at the University and other parts were hidden around the house; but not every part of her body was discovered. Clearly the circumstances surrounding the girl's death were horrific. Dr Perera was arrested, tried for murder, and convicted.
Mr and Mrs Taylor-Rose, the respondents, purchased 16 Stillwell Drive in about September 1998. They did not at that time know about the murder. They remained unaware of what had happened until March 1999 when they received an anonymous note with photocopies of certain newspaper reports of the trial. Their initial reaction was one of shock. On their behalf Mrs Taylor-Rose's mother contacted the family solicitor, a Mr Edwards, who had acted for them on the purchase of the property. Having consulted his partner, Mr Edwards advised that the vendor of the property had not been under an obligation to disclose the history of the house and they would be under no such obligation when they came to sell it. In his witness statement he said he spoke to his partner, Mr Chapman. He continued:
"By the time I spoke to Mr Chapman the attendance note of the conversation with Mr and Mrs Durham had been typed and returned to me. When I spoke to Mr Chapman I explained to him what had been said to me by Mr and Mrs Durham. During our conversation I made manuscript notes in blue ink on the typed note. The original note will show that the manuscript notes are in blue and black ink. The whole of the manuscript motes are in blue with the exception of the following matters."
I will come back to the actual note:
"8. During my discussions with Mr Chapman we agreed that there had been no duty on the Seller to disclose the history of the Property to the Buyer and that there would be no duty on Mrs Taylor-Rose when they sold the Property in due course."
He went on to explain that he spoke to Mrs Taylor-Rose and he used the notes to advise her of the position. He concluded his evidence in this way:
"10. In summary I informed Alison Taylor-Rose that there was no need for her to inform any potential buyer of the Property in due course of the history of the Property. My note was then filed away in accordance with my usual practice. I received no further contact regarding the Property from either Mr and Mrs Durham or Mr and Mrs Taylor-Rose until we were subsequently asked to act on the sale of their property."
The note made by Mr Edwards is as follows:
"They informed me that their daughter had received an anonymous parcel of press cuttings relating to a particularly gruesome murder in the house they recently purchased in Wakefield.
The vendor was the wife of a dentist who apparently dismembered the body of his daughter. She was according to the press cuttings implicated in some way because she received a criminal sentence in relation to the matter.
The daughter cannot now live in the house.
Should this have been reported when they purchased the property."
The note goes on:
"No duty to inform necessarily.
Where does one draw the line.
If they sell and have difficulty might revise opinion based on facts.
Monitor other sales and note agents.
Look at valuers report—was valuer local. Did not say anything.
Don't do anything.
No need to say anything when you sell."
Mr and Mrs Taylor-Rose left the property on the Thursday after receiving the press cuttings, but returned on the following Monday and continued to live there for about 18 months.
In the autumn of 2000 the respondents decided to move to Derby. They put the house on the market and the appellants made an offer of £83,000 which was accepted. There followed the normal enquiries that take place on transfer of property. Those steps included sending to the respondents what is called "Seller's Property Information Form". As the answer to question 13 of that form is at the heart of this appeal, I must refer to a substantial part of it.
The form has at its head the words "IMPORTANT NOTE TO SELLERS". There follows these words:
"* Please complete this form carefully. It will be sent to the buyer's solicitor may be seen by the buyer. If you are unsure how to answer any of the questions, ask your solicitor before doing so.
* For many of the questions you need only tick the correct answer. Where necessary, please give more detailed answers on a separate sheet of paper. Then send all the replies to your solicitor so that the information can be passed to the buyer's solicitor.
* The answers should be those of the person whose name is on the deeds. If there is more than one of you, you should prepare the answers together.
* It is very important that your answers are correct because the buyer will rely on them in deciding whether to go ahead. Incorrect information given to the buyer through your solicitor, or mentioned to the buyer in conversation between you, may mean that the buyer can claim compensation from you or even refuse to complete the purchase.
* It does not matter if you do not know the answer to any question so long as you say so.
* The buyer will be told by his solicitor that he takes the property as it is. If he wants more information about it, he should get it from his own advisers, not from you.
* If anything changes after you fill in this questionnaire but before the sale is completed, tell your solicitor immediately. This is as important as giving the right answers in the first place."
The notes go on, but I can pass to the questions. The first question relates to the boundaries and asked:
"1.1 Looking towards the house from the road, who either owns or accepts responsibility for the boundary:
(a) on the left?
(b) on the right?
(c) at the back?"
Question 1.3 was as follows:
"Do you know of any boundary being moved in the last 20 years?"
Question 2 relates to disputes, and asked:
"2.1 Do you know of any disputes about this or any neighbouring property?"
Question3 was concerned with notices and 4 with guarantees. Question 5 dealt with the services of gas, electricity, water supplies, sewage disposal and telephone cables. Question 6 asked about sharing with the neighbours and question 7 with arrangements and rights as follows:
"Are there any other formal or informal arrangements which give someone else rights over your property?"
Question 8 related to occupiers; question 9 with restrictions; question 10 with planning; question 11 with fixtures, and question 12 with expenses. Question 13 was headed "general". It was in these terms:
"Is there any other information which you think the buyer may have a right to know?"
That was answered "no".
The transfer of the property was completed and the appellants moved in on 11th December 2000. They were unaware of the murder that had taken place until they saw a documentary programme which was shown on Channel 5 on 5th July 2001. It revealed the facts surrounding the murder including that Dr Perera's victim was in fact a house slave. She had been murdered then buried in the back garden. After the police had expressed an interest in her whereabouts the body had been exhumed and dissected into small pieces. A number of parts of her body were secreted around the house, but not all of them had been recovered. The programme inferred that there were parts which still existed within the property. The programme stated that according to the investigating police officers the stench of rotting flesh pervaded the house when they entered it.
The appellants and no doubt many others who saw the programme were deeply affected by it. They moved out of the house on 9th July. As the judge held:
"11. … They were horrified by what they saw. I am not surprised at their reaction. The film was shown in court. It shows impressively the work done by forensic scientists in various disciplines but, in order to bring home to the viewer the nature of the work, the makers have necessarily had to go into disturbing detail with regard to Dr Perera's disposal of the remains of his victim.
12. The claimants' reaction was such that they no longer wanted to live in 16 Stillwell Drive. They put the house on the market. They took the view that they could not in conscience dispose of the property without disclosing what they had found out."
It was the appellants' case at trial that they could not sleep in the house and one of them was put on medication. As the judge held, the house was put up for sale...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Magee and Others v Mason and Others
...John Cartwright Misrepresentation, Mistake and Non-Disclosure (4th ed Sweet & Maxwell, London 2017) at [3–07]. 34 Sykes v Taylor-Rose [2004] EWCA Civ 299 at 35 At [50]. 36 West v Quayside Trustee Ltd [2012] NZCA 232, [2012] NZCCLR 16 at [30]. 37 Citing Lawton v Norcross (2009) TCLR 338 (H......
-
Magee & ORS v Mason & ORS
...35 John Cartwright Misrepresentation, Mistake and Non-Disclosure (4th ed Sweet & Maxwell, London 2017) at [3-07]. Sykes v Taylor-Rose [2004] EWCA Civ 299 at At [50]. [61] As to determining the meaning of a representation, I refer to this Court’s decision in West v Quayside Trustee Ltd (in r......
-
Jopard Holdings Ltd v Ladefaith Ltd And Another
...make any disclosureof the tragic incident to the Purchaser, a concession which appears to me to be well justified, see Sykes v. Rose [2004] EWCA Civ 299. 21. The only remaining argument against the Vendor was a claim that thePurchaser entered into the Provisional Agreement by reason of misr......
-
Barfoot & Thompson Limited v Real Estate Agents Authority (cac 20007) & ORS
...the basis of a failure to disclose that the property had been the site of a multiple axe murder of 34 35 At [43]. Sykes v Taylor-Rose [2004] EWCA Civ 299. a woman and her four children 10 years previously. 36 Here the Court noted that stigma associated with the property had a real affect on......
-
THE LAW OF HAUNTED HOUSES: A COMMENT ON STIGMATIZED PROPERTIES FOLLOWING WANG V SHAO.
...Residential" (April 2020), online (paywalled): CREA WEBForms . (125) See BC Manual, supra note 72; Richer, supra note 65. (126) [2004] EWCA CIV 299 (127) Ibid at paras 3, 48. Would unrecovered body parts meet the objectivity threshold set in Wang SC, supra note 4 at para 193? (128) Ibid at ......