Roberts v Jules Consultancy Ltd (in liq)

In the case of Roberts v Jules Consultancy Ltd (in liq), the plaintiff, Mr Roberts, sought damages from Jules Consultancy Ltd, a company in liquidation, and others for their alleged failure to warn him of structural issues with the apartment he purchased. The central issue was whether the defendants had a duty to inform Mr Roberts about the structural integrity of the building before he completed the purchase. The dispute arose from a report by Silvester Clark Ltd, which highlighted significant issues with the building's façade, steelwork, and timber framing. Despite the report's findings and subsequent communications to previous owners warning against using the balconies, Mr Roberts was not directly informed of these issues before completing his purchase.

The court had to determine whether there was a legal obligation on the part of the defendants to inform Mr Roberts of the structural concerns, and if so, whether their failure to do so constituted a breach of duty that warranted compensation. The primary legal issues revolved around the existence and scope of any duty of care owed by the defendants to Mr Roberts, and whether this duty, if breached, resulted in actionable damages. The court needed to consider the relationship between the parties, the nature of the information at hand, and the foreseeability of harm to Mr Roberts if he was not informed of the structural issues.

The court found that there was a duty of care owed by the defendants to Mr Roberts. The defendants were aware of the structural issues and had communicated these concerns to previous owners, which established a pattern of notification. However, Mr Roberts was not directly informed, despite being in the process of purchasing the apartment. The court held that the defendants' failure to inform Mr Roberts of the known structural issues was a breach of this duty. Consequently, the court awarded damages to Mr Roberts for the breach of duty, reflecting the harm caused by the defendants' failure to provide critical information that would have influenced his decision to purchase the apartment.

The court's final orders included a determination that Jules Consultancy Ltd was liable for damages due to the breach of duty to inform Mr Roberts of the structural issues. The exact amount of damages was to be assessed in further proceedings, taking into account the harm suffered by Mr Roberts as a result of not being informed of the building's structural problems before completing his purchase.