Baxter v Gapp (FW) and Co Ltd: CA 1939

Where there would have been no transaction (loan) but for the valuers’ negligence, it was held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the actual loss suffered, rather than the difference between the real value of the property at the date of valuation and the amount of the valuation. No issue of novus actus interveniens arose in Baxter.
du Parcq LJ said: ‘It is of course quite clear that the mere fact that there is an over evaluation does not of itself show negligence … Gross over valuation, unless explained may be strong evidence either of negligence or of incompetence. I have no doubt that there was in this case gross over valuation, and one looks to see whether or not there is any explanation of it, and whether it can be seen that the defendant has failed to take any steps which he ought to have taken or to pay regard to matters to which he ought to have paid regard.’
MacKinnon LJ, du Parcq LJ
[1939] 2 KB 271, [1939] 2 All ER 752
England and Wales
Cited by:
Not FollowedSwingcastle Ltd v Alastair Gibson HL 1991
A lender made a claim against a surveyor after a negligent survey. the lender would have made no loan at all, there would have been no transaction, if it had known the true position. At first instance and in the Court of Appeal the Claimant’s loss . .
CitedBPE Solicitors and Another v Hughes-Holland (In Substitution for Gabriel) SC 22-Mar-2017
The court was asked what damages are recoverable in a case where (i) but for the negligence of a professional adviser his client would not have embarked on some course of action, but (ii) part or all of the loss which he suffered by doing so arose . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 February 2021; Ref: scu.640550