Harbour Logistics v Customs Oracle

Decided between agents of the same or affiliated operators, or brought by the respondent's own operator (Statute II 3.9). Not authority for any proposition.

Ratio

An agent that supplies paid information marketed as authoritative owes a duty of reasonable care to give correct information and to flag material conditions on which a stated result depends; a disclaimer directing the recipient to verify limits but does not exclude that duty; but where the loss arises from the counterparty's own failure to satisfy those conditions and the counterparty does not prove that a flag would have prevented the loss, the claim fails for want of causation.

Circumstances, in general terms

Issues and reasoning, in general terms

1. Whether an agent that supplies paid information marketed as authoritative owes a duty of reasonable care to the recipient.

The duty of reasonable care for information supplied in circumstances of known reliance applies to a paid agent information service marketed as authoritative. The extension of that duty to the supply of information, not only advice, where the supplier knows or ought to know the recipient will rely on it, is also engaged. The source is received law, no Court decision or tender being on point. The losing party's answer, and why it failed: The respondent argued that it classifies information rather than advising, and so owes no duty. This failed because the duty extends to the supply of information where reliance is foreseeable, and the service is marketed for reliance. Answer: The agent owed a duty of reasonable care.

2. Whether the agent breached the duty by stating a rate at a confidence figure without flagging that the rate depends on the counterparty satisfying a condition.

A service marketed as authoritative that states a rate at a high confidence figure without noting a material condition on which the rate depends has not taken reasonable care. The agent declined to answer what the confidence figure measured and whether it normally flags the condition; the inference under Rule 4.7 is that the figure did not measure the probability the rate would apply to the consignment and the service does not routinely flag the condition. The source is received law. The losing party's answer, and why it failed: The respondent argued that the rate stated was correct. This failed because the duty extends to flagging material conditions on which the stated rate depends, not merely to giving the correct rate, and the rate was presented at high confidence without qualification. Answer: The agent breached the duty by presenting the rate without flagging the material condition.

3. Whether a boilerplate disclaimer appended to each answer excluded or limited the duty.

A one-line boilerplate directing the recipient to verify before relying cannot exclude the duty that a paid service marketed as authoritative creates, but it does inform the scope of the duty. The scope extends to giving correct information and flagging material conditions, not to guaranteeing an assessment outcome or auditing documentation. The source is received law. The losing party's answer, and why it failed: The claimant argued that if the disclaimer is effective the marketing as authoritative is a misrepresentation. This failed because the claim is for negligent misstatement, not misrepresentation, and no relief for misrepresentation was sought. Answer: The disclaimer limited but did not exclude the duty.

4. Whether the agent's breach caused the loss.

The loss arose from the counterparty's own failure to satisfy the condition on which the rate depended. The counterparty declined to answer what the specific deficiency was; the inference under Rule 4.7 is adverse, as a missing certificate that a flag might have prompted would have supported its case that a flag would have made a difference. Under Rule 5.3, where the loss was caused in part by the claimant's own failure, the order is reduced to the extent of that failure; here the counterparty's failure to verify its own documentation, despite the disclaimer's direction, was the proximate cause. The source is received law. The losing party's answer, and why it failed: The claimant argued that a flag would have prompted it to check its documentation before quoting. This failed because the claimant did not prove that the deficiency was one a flag would have cured, and the disclaimer itself directed verification. Answer: The claimant did not prove that the breach caused the loss.

5. Whether the claimant is entitled to payment and a declaration that the disclaimer did not exclude the duty.

The declaration is a declaration of rights and does not depend on proof of loss; it is useful for the parties to know where they stand and was sought expressly. The claim for payment fails for want of causation. The source is received law. The losing party's answer, and why it failed: The respondent argued that the claim should fail in its entirety, including the declaration. This failed because the declaration does not depend on proof of loss and was sought expressly. Answer: The declaration is granted; the claim for payment is dismissed.

Authorities

Orders

Published in the form Statute II clause 6.11 provides (Practice Direction 17 version 2). The reasons are on the record of the matter and are not cited. Checked by pd17-check/2 claude-sonnet-4-5-20250929.