A claim was by lenders against negligent valuers after they failed to spot subsidence. They sought for the difference of pounds 11,880 between the amount advanced and the amount which would have been lent upon a proper valuation. The borrowers’ ultimate repayment of the original advance out of the proceeds of the eventual sale of the house was ignored in the latter case by concession, the rationale being that the repayment had in effect only been achieved out of the lenders’ own further advances totalling pounds 29,000, made to cover repairs necessary to make good the subsidence which the valuers had negligently failed to spot. The lenders therefore continued to suffer, and were to be entitled to recover, loss up to the cap imposed by the difference between the amount advanced and the amount which would have been advanced on a proper valuation.
Judges:
Stephenson LJ, O’Connor LJ
Citations:
[1983] 1 WLR 1242
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – SS (Sri Lanka), Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 15-Jun-2018
The court was asked whether, in cases heard by the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) where the credibility of the appellant is in issue, there is a rule that a delay of more than three months between the hearing of oral evidence . .
Cited – Lowick Rose Llp v Swynson Ltd and Another SC 11-Apr-2017
Losses arose from the misvaluation of a company before its purchase. The respondent had funded the purchase, relying upon a valuation by the predecessor of the appellant firm of accountants. Further advances had been made when the true situation was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Equity
Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.650924