Law Tort V Louth Cc

Magdalena Silakowska

1st LL.B.

# 09100998

A case note on Ward v. McMaster [1988] I.R. 337

Ward v. McMaster, Louth County Council and Nicholas Hardy and Co Limited

Supreme Court [1988] IR 337

The Facts

The plaintiffs, Denis Ward and Anne Ward, had bought a house from the first named defendant, the builder-vendor, with the assistance of a loan that was granted by the second defendant, Louth County Council, under the regulations made pursuant to section 39 of the Housing Act, 1966. The local authority commissioned a survey of the house which was carried out negligently by the third named defendant, a firm of auctioneers, and which failed to disclose a number of structural defects, both dangerous and non-dangerous. “A source of danger and a risk to health”1, the house had to be abandoned by the plaintiffs. The purchaser and his wife subsequently took an action in negligence against the three named defendants. In the High Court, Costello J.2 dissmed the action against Mr McLoughlin,a representative of the third-named defendant firm, and held that the first and second defendants were in breach of a duty of care to the plaintiffs. Louth County Council appealed against the judgement of Costello J. to the Supreme Court.

General Field of Law

It fell to be determined by the Supreme Court (Finlay C.J., Walsh, McCarthy, Henchy, and Griffin JJ.) firstly whether a duty of care was owed to the plaintiffs by Louth County Council, and, if so, on what grounds; and secondly, whether the failure to carry out the structural survey was a policy decision that was not open to question by the courts. In dismissing the appeal,the Supreme Court held that Louth County Council had owed the plaintiff a common duty of care not to cause damage by acting negligently when it exercised its statutory powers under the Housing Act 1966 to provide a loan and carry out a valuation of the house. The Supreme Court affirmed that although the Housing Act 1966 did not create a private duty...