First, it concerned the existence of a duty of care in tort for negligent misstatements, not made directly to someone relying on the statement.

A surveyor, Eric Bush, was employed by a building society, Abbey National, to inspect and value 242 Silver Road, Norwich.

[1] Eric Bush disclaimed responsibility to the purchaser, Mrs Smith, who was paying a fee of £36.89 to the building society to have the valuation done.

Lord Templeman said the Act regulated ‘all exclusion notices which would in common law provide a defence to an action for negligence.’ Lord Griffiths said s.13 was ‘introducing a ‘but for’ test in relation to the notice excluding liability’, so courts should decide whether a duty of care would exist but for the exclusion.

That was because the purchase of a house by a private citizen like Mrs Smith was bound to be one of the most expensive in a lifetime, and it was more reasonable that a professional surveyor bear the risk of liability.