It's customary for websites to include a disclaimer such as: "This information is of a general nature only, and is not advice". Or "This information is provided 'as is', and we accept no liability for its accuracy".

However, there has not been an authoritative Commonwealth Court decision on their effectiveness until recently. As a result, there has been a degree of uncertainty over basic questions, such as:

Can an incorrect statement on a website result in a claim of negligence against the website owner, and, in what circumstances will a disclaimer protect the website owner from liability?

In July, the UK Court of Appeal reviewed these issues for the first time in the case Patchett v SPATA, setting a precedent likely to be influential in any similar New Zealand case.

Mr and Mrs Patchett decided to install a swimming pool. They searched on Google, and found the website of the Swimming Pool & Allied Trades Association (SPATA) -- a UK trade body representing swimming pool installers. On the "about us" page, it stated:

"Installing a swimming pool is a specialised task ... One way of guaranteeing that the pool installation company has this expertise, is to make sure they are a member of the SPATA before contacting them for a quotation ... SPATA pool installer members are fully vetted before being admitted to membership, with checks on their financial record, their experience in the trade and inspections of their work ... Only SPATA registered pool and spa installers belong to SPATASHIELD, SPATA's unique Bond and Warranty Scheme offering customers peace of mind".

There was also a function for requesting an "information pack" (which would be sent by post) containing more information about the warranty and member requirements.

The website had a "member finder" function to help visitors find SPATA members near to them. The Patchetts used the function to locate Crown Pools Ltd, who they hired to install their pool. Unfortunately, Crown became insolvent before completing the job and the Patchetts lost their money.

It soon emerged that Crown was not an actual member of SPATA, and therefore had not been financially vetted by SPATA and was not eligible for the warranty scheme, despite the Patchetts having been referred to Crown via SPATA's website.

The Patchetts attempted to sue SPATA on the basis that statements on its website -- which implied that all businesses it listed were members and therefore financially sound and warranted -- were negligent.