Howard Marine & Dredging Co Ltd v A Ogden & Sons (Excavations) Ltd [1978] QB 574
Contract law – Misrepresentation – Negligence
Facts
The defendant, A, were civil engineering contractors who entered into negotiation with H for the hire of two ships to carry clay out to sea. During the negotiation, A, represented that the ships could carry 1600 tonnes, a representation which was based upon consultation of an erroneous register. The accurate capacity was significantly lower but A continued negotiations without checking this figure. The parties agreed on a charter-party which included a clause which stated that the hiring party had examined the ships and that they were fit for purpose. Six months later, A gained further information on the correct capacity and paid £20,000 for the hire but no more. H restricted the use of the barges and claimed for the remaining hire charge amount. A brought a counter-claim for damages.
Issue
The defendant claimed for breach of the collateral warranty in the representations between the parties before the agreement had been reached as well as in negligence under Hedley Byrne v Heller & Partners [1964] AC 465, on the basis of a special relationship between the parties and for breaching the Misrepresentation Act 1967, section 2.
Decision/Outcome
The court allowed the appeal in part. It was found that there was no collateral warranty agreed between the parties prior to the agreement of the parties. Moreover, the misrepresentation regarding the capacity of the ship was considered a minor matter. However, the court found H liable for a breach of duty under the Misrepresentation Act 1967. On this basis, the court was not required to consider the claim in tort law under Hedley Byrne v Heller & Partners [1964] AC 465.
Updated 19 March 2026
This case summary remains broadly accurate as a description of the Court of Appeal’s decision in Howard Marine & Dredging Co Ltd v A Ogden & Sons (Excavations) Ltd [1978] QB 574. The core legal principles discussed — liability under section 2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967, the relationship between statutory and tortious liability for negligent misrepresentation, and the treatment of collateral warranties — remain good law.
One point worth noting for accuracy: the facts as summarised attribute the erroneous representation about carrying capacity to the defendant (A Ogden), when in fact it was the claimant Howard Marine’s representative who made the misrepresentation about the barges’ capacity during pre-contractual negotiations. Readers should bear this in mind when using the summary. The Misrepresentation Act 1967 has not been materially amended in ways that would affect the principles illustrated by this case, and section 2(1) continues to impose liability for negligent misrepresentation where the representor cannot prove reasonable grounds for belief in the truth of the representation.
