Matthew Taylor v Ms Sue Diamond
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Norris |
| Judgment Date | 22 October 2012 |
| Neutral Citation | [2012] EWHC 2900 (Ch) |
| Docket Number | Case No: HQ12X02345/1WC90009 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
| Date | 22 October 2012 |
[2012] EWHC 2900 (Ch)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
The Rolls Building
Fetter Lane
London, EC4A 1NL
Mr Justice Norris
Case No: HQ12X02345/1WC90009
Carl Brewin (instructed by Paris Smith) for the Claimant
Ms Diamond in person
Hearing dates: 5 October 2012
Ms Diamond is a retired police officer who suffers from dyslexia, hearing impairment and restrictions on her physical mobility. She is conducting her case in person. I would at the outset of this judgment put on record my thanks to the Chancery Listing Office and the Court Officials at the Newport (Isle of Wight) County Court for the assistance they have given to Ms Diamond, which has undoubtedly facilitated the presentation of her case: and I would acknowledge the contribution made to that process by those representing the Claimant/Respondent to Ms Diamond's applications.
Ms Diamond owns a property at 27 Staveley Road, Grove Park (Chiswick) London W4 ("Staveley Road"). It is a semi-detached house in untended grounds with a partially completed rear extension and a partially completed loft conversion. At the time of the events with which I must deal it appears to have been full of clothes and chattels (possibly the contents of the homes of three deceased family members): and these had been damaged when a pipe had burst at Staveley Road and flooded the premises.
On the 18 February 2010 Ms Diamond bought Ridgemount House, Redcliffe Road, Torquay ("Ridgemount") for £154,500.00. She bought at auction, where it was Lot 28. The vendor was Mr Taylor (who had himself bought from a Mr Cousens). Mr Taylor did not live at Ridgemount: he was a builder and it was a project. Mr Cousens had ceased to live in Ridgemount because of its dangerous condition. Ridgemount stood some yards back from the edge of a cliff. Ms Diamond did not herself inspect the property: nor did she have a survey done. She bid by telephone on the basis of photographs of Lot 28 that she had seen.
The promotional material for the auction said:—
"February auctions are always unpredictable as you find that collecting lots after the Christmas holiday season is always challenging. However, I am delighted to offer you a wide range of property this month with excellent development, investment and refurbishment properties going under the hammer. For those who dream of creating your own home, check out Lot 28, a truly stunning position overlooking the surrounding golf course, town and beaches of Torquay!"
The description of Ridgemount in the auction itself appears above a box which advised prospective purchasers to take professional advice from a solicitor or surveyor, to read all of the Conditions in the catalogue, to inspect the lot selected, and to undertake all the usual searches and usual enquiries. The description of Ridgemount appeared under the rubric "Cash buyers only due to structural issues". It described the property as occupying a "cliff top position" and continued:—
"The property has suffered from severe structural damage and may be beyond economical repair. However, the opportunity to create a new property (subject to negotiation and any appropriate reports/consents from the local authorities) makes this project a very interesting and unique opportunity for professional builders/property investors".
It then continued with a description of the property. In her witness statement Ms Diamond quotes two other comments about Ridgemount from the sales material. The first is:—
"The property is in poor condition both cosmetically and has suffered from extensive structural damage".
The second is:—
"The property in our opinion is best removed and would suit being replaced with a more suitable sized family home, designed to take advantage of the views, location and structural/planning requirements".
I have not traced the source of these quotations: but on these applications I accept them as accurate.
The Special Conditions relating to Lot 28 required the purchaser to admit:—
"He has decided to purchase the property solely as a result of his own inspection and on the basis of these conditions and not in reliance upon any representation or warranty either written or oral or implied made by or on behalf of the sellers (save for any representation or warranty contained in the written replies given by the sellers solicitors to any preliminary enquiries raised by the buyer or the buyers solicitors)".
The "legal pack" available before the auction contained a standard form "Property Information Sheet". This sheet said that Ridgemount was uninhabitable, suffered from structural damage apparent on inspection, and did not have central heating (although the property particulars themselves disclosed that there was a boiler room in the basement). Ms Diamond says that she sent additional Enquiries before Contract to the auctioneers on the 10 February, but she did not receive any answer.
The General Conditions of the Auction provided that between contract and completion "no damage to or destruction of the lot or any deterioration in its condition, however caused, entitles the buyer to any reduction in price, or to delay completion, or to refuse to complete": (see clause G 3.2).
Ms Diamond was the successful bidder. The Memorandum of Sale describes the buyer as "Ms Sue Diamond, 27 Staveley Road, Grove Park, London W4 3HU". This would have been information provided by Ms Diamond in order to obtain registration as a bidder (and if the auction rules were followed would have been supported by identity verification documents such as a driving licence or utility bills).
In paragraph 3 of her very lengthy witness statement Ms Diamond explains why she brought Ridgemount:
"The fact is the whole reason I bought Ridgemount House so hastily at auction was because my Disabled Residence was made uninhabitable by burst pipes with extensive flood damage causing damp and retention in the lathe and plaster walls and ceilings, with water supplies still switched off to house as no access could be made to loft to start repair work until all flood damage contents, which you can see piled high drying out in corridors and all rooms spread out to dry with clothes hung up on every door frame in house left to dry out".
Elsewhere (at paragraph 91) she explains that she intended to make the ground floor of the property her disabled living accommodation:
"… with flooded chattels being spread out on this floor and upper floors to dry and air out, which obviously needs all windows to be able to be opened up to let air circulate".
Then in paragraph 106 she explains:
"… the whole reason I bought Ridgemount House was because I urgently needed alternative disabled ground floor accommodation and extensive storage facilities to dry out everything flooded due to the burst pipes water damage with dampness causing mould spores with so much contents stacked against damp walls rendering it uninhabitable and putting the contents at risk of water damage, as everything needed to be spread out to dry and air out in non damp conditions. I needed to be in the West Country to deal with bereavement matters so this property was ideal".
On 26 February 2010 there was a major landslide on land adjoining Ridgemount (though the land within the registered title being sold remained intact). A substantial part of the cliff fell away leaving the house itself only 50 yards from the cliff edge. Ms Diamond says that this landslip now makes it dangerous to occupy the house so that it has value only as amenity land (which she puts at £3500). Accordingly, when the time came for completion Ms Diamond did not complete the transaction.
On 19 March 2010 Mr Taylor's solicitors sent by recorded delivery to Ms Diamond at Staveley Road a Notice to Complete. Paragraph 4 of the Particulars of Claim (verified by a Statement of Truth from the solicitor) says that the letter was signed for by Ms Diamond. This particular allegation is not specifically addressed in Ms Diamond's evidence.
Ms Diamond says that she herself served a Notice to Complete and some accompanying documents on Mr Taylor's solicitors on 8 April 2010, offering to complete at a reduced price. There is no complete copy of Ms Diamond's Notice to Complete. Ms Diamond says that all her papers have been stolen: and that it is necessary for her to reconstruct events using the copy faxed documents which Mr Taylor's solicitors have disclosed as having been received by them (which she says are not complete). At the hearing Ms Diamond confirmed that the Notice to Complete which she sent began
"I Ms S Diamond of 27 Staveley Road London W4 3HU hereby ….".
At the hearing Ms Diamond explained that she gave that address "because it was an official document". Ms Diamond says (though Mr Taylor's solicitors do not accept) that she also sent some Preliminary Enquiries, some Requisitions on Title and a request for completion information. On the Preliminary Enquiries she says that they are made on behalf of "Miss S Diamond c/o "The Villa" St Mary's Road, Meare, Somerset". On the Requisitions she described the buyer as "Ms S Diamond, the Villa, St Mary's Road, Meare, Somerset, BA6 9SS". I understood her to say she also sent a Form TR1 (stating a purchase price of £3500): the copy in the hearing bundle is signed by her and witnessed by someone who lives in Bolton Road, Grove Park, W4 3TE.
It is common ground that on the 21 April 2010 Ms Diamond spoke with Mr Taylor's solicitors and that in that telephone conversation (a) she made reference to letters having been sent to "the wrong address" (though in making that comment she demonstrated that she had obviously received them); and (b) she refused to state the address to which documents should be sent. The solicitor's account of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial