V - Valuer or surveyor's negligence
22/3/24
BRATT v JONES [2024] EWHC 631 (Ch)
Summarises how the court should determine whether a valuation is negligent, having regard to the acceptable margin for error [165]. On the facts, a valuation within 14.15% of the correct value was within an acceptable margin for error and not negligent.
22/5/20
HART v LARGE [2020] EWHC 985 (TCC)
Considers a surveyor’s duty of care [125]. On the facts a surveyor instructed to provide a Home Buyer’s Report had not been under a duty to recommend a building survey [127]. The property had suffered significant damp. Although there had been no evidence of damp at the date of the surveyor’s inspection, the surveyor ought to have noticed the absence of any visible damp proof course and recommended further investigation [196]. He should also have recommended obtaining a professional consultant’s certificate [215]. Considers the assessment of damages where the property would not have been purchased but for the negligence survey [233]. Damages were to be assessed as the difference in value between the property with the defects as reported and its value with all the defects which in fact existed [254].
30/9/14
TITAN EUROPE 2006-3 PLC v COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL UK PLC [2014] EWHC 3106 (Comm)
Loans secured on a property were securitised. The claimant, a purchaser of a tranche of the loans, issued floating rate notes to investors. The claimant claimed that the defendants had negligently over-valued the property. Although note holders suffered the economic loss, the claimant could sue because it was obliged to distribute any sums received to the note holders for the time being. Although the claimant had not been concerned to read the detail of the valuation reports, it was sufficient to establish reliance that it had relied on the valuation figure.
8/11/12
CAPITA ALTERNATIVE FUND SERVICES (GUERNSEY) LTD v MATRIX SECURITIES LTD [2012] EWCA Civ 1417
In assessing expert valuation evidence a judge is entitled to arrive at a figure between those given by two opposing experts. Valuation is an art not a science. Pinpoint accuracy cannot be expected. Depending on the property, margins of error can be of some magnitude. Although the trial judge had not erred in finding the valuation of an investment property had been negligent, in calculating damages the judge ought to have required the claimant to give credit for tax benefits received from investing in the property.
© Copyright 2014 Neil Levy All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer