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 valuation.
Held: Part of the skills of a chartered accountant, especially one who is willing to undertake a valuation of shares, is the valuation of shares. The properties should not have been valued on a portfolio basis. Too great a deduction for contingent tax was allowed. A deduction for non-listed status was based on an error of principle, but was within the permissible range. He was not negligent in making a deduction to reflect a 75 per cent probability that the options would be exercised. The permissible range is between 50 and 75 per cent. The mean is 62.5 per cent. The valuation remained within the permissible range. Negligence would not be shown if the figure advised was within the range of permissible figures, even if it was reached negligently. Where a figure was made up of several others, a brackert was to calculated for each, not just for those involving negligence. No loss was shown and the action dismissed.
Judges:
The Honourable Mr Justice Lewison
Citations:
Gazette 11-Sep-2003, HC 02 C00884, [2003] EWHC 1574 (Ch), Times 16-Jul-2003
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Singer and Friedlander Ltd v Wood 1977
Valuers acting competently and professionally may reach widely varying conclusions as to value. There is a permissible margin of error, the ‘bracket’. What can properly be expected from a competent valuer using reasonable care and skill is that his . .
Cited – Mount Banking Corporation Ltd v Brian Cooper and Co QBD 1992
The plaintiff submitted that where the final valuation figure is within the Bolam principle, an acceptable figure, albeit towards the top end, but where none the less the valuer has erred materially in reaching that figure, the plaintiff can succeed . .
Cited – Zubaida v Hargreaves CA 1995
In the general run of actions for negligence against professional men it is not enough to show that another expert would have given a different answer. The issue is whether the defendant acted in accordance with practices which are regarded as . .
Cited – Craneheath Securities v York Montague CA 1996
When testing whether a valuation was negligent, it would not be enough for the plaintiff to show that there have been errors at some stage of the valuation unless they can also show that the final valuation was wrong. would not be enough for the . .
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 – South Australia Asset Management Corporation v York Montague Ltd etc HL 24-Jun-1996
Limits of Damages for Negligent Valuations
Damages for negligent valuations are limited to the foreseeable consequences of advice, and do not include losses arising from a general fall in values. Valuation is seldom an exact science, and within a band of figures valuers may differ without . .
Cited – Legal and General Mortgage Services v HPC Professional Services 1997
The claimant submitted that he was entitled to succeed in his claim gthat a valuation was negligent, either by showing that the valuer’s final figure was outside the bracket within which any competent valuer using reasonable skill and care could . .
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 – Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee QBD 1957
Professional to use Skilled Persons Ordinary Care
Negligence was alleged against a doctor.
Held: McNair J directed the jury: ‘Where some special skill is exercised, the test for negligence is not the test of the man on the Clapham omnibus, because he has not got this special skill. The test . .
Cited – Curry’s Group Plc v Martin QBD 13-Oct-1999
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 . .
Cited – Arab Bank Plc v John D Wood Commercial Ltd (In Liquidation) and others CA 25-Nov-1999
Having once recovered damages against a valuer for a negligent survey, there was nothing to stop a lender recovering also under a policy of insurance under a mortgage indemnity guarantee, and so the lender was not required to give credit for monies . .
Cited – Sansom and Another v Metcalfe Hambleton and Co CA 17-Dec-1997
The court warned against finding a professional to have been negligent on the evidence of an expert who was not a member of the same profession. A structural survey was prepared by a chartered surveyor. Expert evidence for the plaintiff was given, . .
Cited – Whiteoak v Walker ChD 1988
The articles of association of a private company provided for shares to be valued by the auditor. The plaintiff transferred shares at a price fixed by the auditor, and subsequently alleged that the valuation was negligently made. One of the issues . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Company, Professional Negligence
Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.184170
