- In the case of Patchett and another v. Swimming Pool and Allied Trades Association Limited [2009] EWCA Civ 717 the Court of Appeal dismissed a claim by Gary and Karen Patchett that they had been mislead by the website terms of the Swimming Pool and Allied Trades Association (SPATA) having chosen Crown Pools Limited to install a pool on the strength of the SPATA "member finder" terms.
- The transcript of the decision (made available by our clients Wordwave International Limited), indicates that whilst the SPATA "member finder" terms were misleading, the Patchetts failed to carry out sufficient due diligence before appointing a SPATA member who subsequently went out of business causing financial loss to the Patchetts who had to spend more money to get the pool finished by another installer.
The Patchetts wanted to install a swimming pool and found the SPATA website as a result of a Google search. The website offered a "member finder" section which the Patchetts used to contact three companies for quotes.
The member finder section of the SPATA website made a claim that "pool installer members are fully vetted before being admitted to membership, with checks on their financial record, their experience in the trade and inspections of their work." The website did not make it clear that there were members and affiliate members and that only full members were vetted as referred to above.
In hiring affiliate member Crown Pool Limited, the Patchetts relied on the SPATA representations but did not make further investigations themselves.
When Crown Pools Limited went out of business, the Patchetts claimed that SPATA's representations were negligent and that SPATA had failed to take reasonable care in making such representations.
The Court of Appeal held that SPATA did not owe a duty of care to the Patchetts in this instance and, moreover, since SPATA advised customers to obtain an information pack (for further due diligence) and the Patchetts failed to do so, the Patchetts themselves had not exercised sufficient care.
It should be noted Lady Justice Smith delivered a dissenting judgment, stating that in relation to the section on the website advising on an information pack there was nothing "which would suggest to the reader that it was necessary to obtain the information pack in order to make a further check on the credentials of the members listed on the website." She also added "nor is there anything to suggest that the information pack is necessary as a check on the accuracy of the information provided on the site itself".
Although in this instance there was held to be no duty of care, this case is a reminder that website owners should take care to draw their terms and conditions and any disclaimers or limitations of liability as carefully as possible.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
