This case represents the first UK decision on negligence liability for incorrect information on a website, and the Court of Appeal’s decision raises some interesting issues. While it was held that SPATA did not owe a duty of care to the claimants, the majority reached this conclusion only because the website suggested that a user could apply for further information (which would have revealed the error) and the claimants had failed to do so. Meanwhile, the dissenting judge would have held that there was sufficient proximity between the parties in order to establish a duty of care even in spite of the availability of the further information pack.

The findings in this case may come as something of a surprise to those who operate websites which are broadly similar to that of SPATA, and who might not consider their websites to be providing “advice” which could form the basis of a negligence claim if it later transpires that information on the website is incorrect. This is perhaps particularly true where, as with the present case, there is no contact whatsoever between the user and the website operator beyond the user viewing the website itself.

The case underlines the importance of ensuring that information on a website is correct, comprehensive and is kept up-to-date. It also demonstrates that website operators should consider limiting or excluding their liability if there is any possibility that the website could be considered to be providing advice of a sort that might be relied upon by a website user.