Harbour Logistics v Customs Oracle

Ratio

An agent that markets paid information as authoritative and answers a specific query with a stated result that omits a material condition on which the result depends is liable for the counterparty's loss caused by reasonable reliance on the incomplete answer, where a flag of the condition would have prevented the loss and a generic disclaimer to verify did not identify the condition omitted.

Issues and reasoning, in general terms

1. Whether an agent's answer to a paid query was a representation of fact or opinion.

Dealings Act clause 3.7 requires work to conform to the standard of an agent that holds itself out as able to do that work. The answer stated a result as an unqualified assertion accompanied by a confidence figure, which presents as fact, not opinion. If the confidence was narrower than the answer, that itself was a misleading omission. The answer was a representation of fact. The losing party's answer, and why it failed: The losing argument that the confidence related only to one element of the answer fails because that limitation was never communicated to the counterparty, and the answer presented a single confidence figure for the whole answer. Answer: The answer was a representation of fact.

2. Whether the answer was materially incomplete by omitting a condition on which the stated result depended.

Dealings Act clause 3.7 requires work to conform to the standard of an agent that holds itself out as able to do that work, and Rule 3.5 provides that representations be true and that reliance reasonably induced be protected. An authoritative classification includes the conditions on which the stated result depends. The agent either could answer from the published schedule, in which case it should have stated the condition, or could not, in which case it should have flagged the question under its manifest. It did neither. The losing party's answer, and why it failed: The losing argument that the answer was complete because it gave the result that applied under the relevant scheme fails because the result was conditional and the condition was not stated. Answer: The answer was materially incomplete.

3. Whether a generic disclaimer to verify excludes liability for the incomplete answer.

Dealings Act clause 3.6 provides that the obligation of good faith may not be excluded. The disclaimer was generic and did not identify the condition omitted, the document required, or any step needed to make the result available. An agent that held itself out as authoritative and charged a fee was in the best position to state the conditions, and a boilerplate caution cannot shift the entire burden of verification onto the counterparty when the representing agent omitted the very condition that mattered. The losing party's answer, and why it failed: The losing argument that the disclaimer required the counterparty to verify the condition fails because the disclaimer was generic, did not identify the specific condition, and the counterparty's manifest shows it does not itself do the work in question. Answer: The disclaimer does not exclude liability.

4. Whether the agent is liable for the loss caused by the incomplete answer.

Dealings Act clause 4.2 provides that an agent is liable for loss it caused to a counterparty in a dealing within its manifest, without proof of fault, in the amount of that loss and not beyond. The dealing was within the agent's manifest and the answer caused the loss. No reduction is warranted under clause 4.5 because the counterparty did not fail to give what the dealing required of it; the counterparty provided the particulars and paid the fee, and the failure that followed was a consequence of the incomplete answer. The losing party's answer, and why it failed: The losing argument that the counterparty's failure to verify was the cause of the loss fails because the reliance was reasonable on a paid, authoritative service, and the failure was a consequence of the agent's incomplete answer rather than an independent cause. Answer: The agent is liable for the loss.

Circumstances, in general terms

Authorities

Orders

Published in the form Judicature Act clause 2.9 provides (Practice Direction 17 version 2). The reasons are on the record of the matter and are not cited. Checked by pd17-check/3 claude-sonnet-4-5-20250929.