Young v Hamilton & Ors
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Morgan LCJ |
| Judgment Date | 30 June 2014 |
| Neutral Citation | [2014] NICA 48 |
| Date | 30 June 2014 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Northern Ireland) |
| Year | 2014 |
1
Neutral Citation No. [2014] NICA 48
Ref:
MOR9340
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down
Delivered:
30/06/2014
(subject to editorial corrections)*
IN HER MAJESTY’S COURT OF APPEAL IN NORTHERN IRELAND
________
BETWEEN:
ROBERTA ANN YOUNG
Appellant;
-and-
ANDREW SYDNEY HAMILTON, JAMES SAMUEL HAMILTON, MARGARET
JOAN HAMILTON AND LORRAINE THOMPSON
Respondents/Cross-appellants
________
Before: Morgan LCJ, Coghlin LJ and Weir J
_______
MORGAN LCJ (giving the judgment of the court)
[1] These appeals arise from judgments given by Treacy J on 7 October 2011 and
24 February 2012. The proceedings concerned the purchase of a building site in 2000
by the plaintiff, Roberta Ann Young, and her husband, William James Young, from
the Hamiltons. Mrs Young retained Lorraine Thompson as her solicitor in the
transaction. It transpired that ownership of the laneway by which the site was
accessed was disputed by the Russells, who owned a neighbouring site located
further down the lane.
[2] In his first judgment the learned judge found that the Hamiltons, who had
sold the site to the Youngs, made misrepresentations which induced Mrs Young to
enter the contract for purchase of the site. He further found that the enquiries made
by Lorraine Thompson concerning the purchase of the site had not been sufficient to
discharge her duties to Mrs Young. He found that the Hamiltons and Mrs Thompson
were not liable for losses arising from the actions of Mrs Young after November
2000, by which time she had affirmed her ownership of the site in the knowledge of
the laneway dispute.
2
[3] In his second judgment the learned judge apportioned liability of 75% and
25% to the Hamiltons and Mrs Thompson respectively. He awarded general
damages for distress and inconvenience of £2500 and interest. The remainder of Mrs
Young’s claim could not be sustained because she had not suffered loss in the value
of the property and on 18 November 2004 the Russells had conceded good title to the
disputed section of laneway. There was no evidence to support the other itemised
heads of loss.
[4] There are four appeals now before the Court. We intend to deal with them in
the following order:
(a) an appeal by the Hamiltons against findings that they made
misrepresentations to Mrs Young which had induced her to enter into the
contract to purchase the site;
(b) an appeal by Mrs Thompson against findings that she failed to discharge her
duties to Mrs Young and was liable to her;
(c) an appeal by Mrs Young against Mrs Thompson, seeking the judgment in
respect of damages and costs to be set aside and replaced by an order
reflecting her true loss and costs; and
(d) an appeal by Mrs Young against the Hamiltons seeking judgment in respect
of damages and costs to be set aside.
Mrs Young appeared on her own behalf in respect of the appeal against damages,
Mr Kennedy QC and Mr Girvan appeared for her in defence of the cross-appeals, Mr
Hanna QC appeared with Mr Henry for the Hamiltons and Mr Good QC appeared
with Mr Dunlop for Mrs Thompson. We are grateful for the helpful oral and written
submissions.
Background
[5] In September 2000 the Youngs entered into an agreement to purchase a
building site with outline planning permission for a single storey dwelling at
Carrowdore Road, Greyabbey. The agreement included a right of way along the
lower portion of the laneway which provided access to the site. At the upper end of
this laneway, beyond the site entrance, lay the property of the Russells, who, it
transpired, asserted exclusive ownership of the laneway.
[6] Mrs Young purchased this property as a joint tenant with her husband. He
subsequently became bankrupt and was dismissed from the action. Mrs Young’s
case is that she and her husband visited the site one Sunday in November 2000
shortly after they had bought it. She said that they met Mrs Russell who told them
that she hoped they were not buying the site because she, Mrs Russell, owned the
To continue reading
Request your trial
4 cases
-
X’s (a minor) Application
...PPS decisions to prosecute or not to prosecute, the most recent authority in Northern Ireland being Re Mooney’s (Christopher) Application [2014] NICA 48 which reviewed all of the salient case law. [31] Hence for the purposes of the instant case, the relevant principles can be stated as foll......
-
Mulhern's (Frank) Application
...decisions to prosecute or not to 9 prosecute, the most recent authority in Northern Ireland being Re Mooney’s (Christopher) Application [2014] NICA 48 which reviewed all of the salient case law. [31] Hence for the purposes of the instant case, the relevant principles can be stated as follow......
-
Osborne's (Congetta) Application
...PPS decisions to prosecute or not to prosecute, the most recent authority in Northern Ireland being Re Christopher Mooney’s Application [2014] NICA 48 which reviewed all of the salient case law.” And as it happens Mooney was not included in the papers for this hearing. His Lordship went on ......
-
In the matter of a solicitor
...competent to take differing views on these matters. [23] The Court of Appeal has recently considered in Young v Hamilton and others [2014] NICA 48 the assistance which can be derived from this sort of debate between competent solicitors. In the event the comments in that case apply with equ......