Whittington v Seale-Hayne [1900]

Court: High Court

Facts: Mr. Whittington, who bred prize poultry, leased a farm from Seale-Hayne based on their representation that the premises were sanitary and in good repair. In reality, the water supply was contaminated, which led to illness for Mr. Whittington’s manager and the death of his poultry. The council deemed the premises unfit for habitation, necessitating extensive repairs. Mr. Whittington sought rescission of the lease and indemnity for various losses, including the loss of poultry, lost profits, and medical expenses.

Issue: The issue was which expenses or losses incurred by Mr. Whittington were recoverable under indemnity for the misrepresentation.

Held: The High Court held that Mr. Whittington could recover the rent paid and the cost of repairs, but not the loss of poultry, lost profits, or medical expenses.

💡 Leveluplaw: This case underscores the distinction between indemnity and damages in the context of misrepresentation. It highlights that while indemnity can cover specific losses directly resulting from a misrepresentation, claims for consequential losses like lost profits or medical expenses are generally not recoverable unless fraud is involved.