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 precise conclusions, and thus that the conclusions of competent and careful valuers may differ, perhaps by a substantial margin, without one of them being negligent. The court first tests whether the case falls outside the range of proper valuations, the ‘bracket’. The bracket is not to be determined in a mechanistic way, divorced from the facts of the instant case.
Buxton LJ
Times 05-May-1999, Gazette 12-May-1999, [1999] 1 EGLR 171, [1999] EWCA Civ 1239, [2000] PNLR 498
England and Wales
CitedBolam 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 by:
CitedLloyds TSB Bank Plc v Edward Symmons and Partners TCC 12-Mar-2003
The defendants had carried out a survey and valuation for the claimants, who now sought damages alleging that the valuer had miscalculated the area of the premises, omitting certain areas which would affect the value.
Held: In order to make . .
CitedGoldstein 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 . .
CitedCurry’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 . .
CitedRoger Michael and others v Douglas Henry Miller and Another ChD 22-Mar-2004
Property had been sold by the respondents as mortgagees in possession. The claimants said the judge had failed to award the value of the property as found to be valued, and had not given a proper value to a crop of lavender.
Held: In . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 May 2021; Ref: scu.146154