In the case, the sale of a prefabricated house built in the 1950s took place through a local estate agent.

As is obligatory in all property sales, a survey for asbestos was undertaken by a firm of surveyors (diagnostiqueur) which concluded that there was no asbestos in the property.

However, following the sale the buyers established from research carried out on-line that the property was of a standard construction type which contained asbestos in the walls, slabs and roof.

As a result, they sued the surveyors and the estate agents for damages.

In court, the surveying technician stated that they had been unable to establish that asbestos was in the property due to "inaccessibility".

Their argument was dismissed by court experts who stated that the roofspace was accessible, but that the technician had simply not brought with them a step ladder to obtain access. The court also dismissed the adequacy of a simple visual examination, stating that the technician must implement all the means necessary for the proper execution of their task.

Not surprisingly, therefore, the surveyors were found to have failed in their responsibility.

In addition, however, the court considered that, in their capacity as a real estate professional, the estate agent should have been aware that the property they were selling was of a type that was constructed using fibre cement sheets containing asbestos.

The court stated that: "Having held that it was for the estate agent to mention the date and type of construction of the house in the sale contract, being essential characteristics of the property sold,..... they had committed a fault for which they were liable."

As a result, although the estate agent was not a technical expert, their obligation to inform and advise requires them to be vigilant in the technical aspects of the property.

The court considered that the property was uninhabitable and incapable of renovation, requiring complete demolition and reconstruction.

They ordered the estate agents and the survey company to pay the purchasers damages of €186,000, divided 15% and 85% respectively.