The valuer valued a lease for a rent review clause, after advice, on the basis that the rent stated was to be a headline rent. The claim was dismissed because a valuer acting in such a situation was not substantially different from one undertaking a valuation. Valuation remained an uncertain art particularly where different bases of valuation might be appropriate. Possible incentives payable by the landlord were relevant considerations. The submission made on its behalf was that it was sufficient to show that the defendant was negligent in his methodology in a way that was adverse to it, and that damages are recoverable even though the rent determined was one that a reasonably competent surveyor could have determined. That submission was firmly based on Lion Nathan. The claimant submitted that Merivale Moore was decided per incuriam, on the ground that Lion Nathan did not appear to have been cited.
Held: It was inconceivable that Lion Nathan overlooked Merivale. The doctrine of per incuriam does not apply to decisions of the Privy Council. He therefore held that he was bound to follow the ratio of Merivale Moore.
Mr Michael Harvey QC
Gazette 13-Oct-1999,  3 EGLR 165
Cited – Lion Nathan Limited and others v C C Bottlers Limited and others PC 14-May-1996
(New Zealand) A company was sold with a warranty that the sales figures would meet projected earnings. The purchaser successfully complained after the event that the figures were false and misleading. They appealed an order increasing the damages on . .
Cited – Merivale Moore Plc; Merivale Moore Construction Limited v Strutt and Parker (a Firm) CA 22-Apr-1999
An agent valuing a commercial property and estimating the return to be obtained without qualification, was responsible in damages where the clients would not have proceeded on properly qualified advice. The process of valuation does not admit of . .
Cited – Goldstein v Levy Gee ( A Firm) ChD 1-Jul-2003
There had been a dispute between shareholders, and the defendant was called upon to value the company. He issued a tender for valuers to value the properties. Complaint was made that the tender was negligent in its description of the basis for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79716