The applicant had been employed as a surveyor by a firm which had subsequently become insolvent. The firm’s run off professional indemnity insurance had lapsed. He had provided the negligent survey, and he was sued in person.
Held: He was personally liable. The case of Smith v Bush suggested that he was responsible, and subsequent glosses on that case had not changed the fundamentals. He was liable even though the buyers had not seen his report for the lender.
May LJ said: ‘If the damage is what has been characterised as foreseeable economic loss, there may be a problem, the more so if what causes the loss is the giving of advice or the providing of information. In such cases especially – but, I think, in every case – reliance is an intrinsically necessary ingredient which appears in every formulation of a test.’
Judges:
May LJ, Aldous LJ, Wilson J
Citations:
Gazette 29-Mar-2001, Times 02-Mar-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 214, [2001] QB 1174, (2001) EGCS 20, [2001] 3 WLR 1
Links:
Statutes:
Building Societies Act 1986 13
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Smith v Eric S Bush, a firm etc HL 20-Apr-1989
In Smith, the lender instructed a valuer who knew that the buyer and mortgagee were likely to rely on his valuation alone. The valuer said his terms excluded responsibility. The mortgagor had paid an inspection fee to the building society and . .
Cited – Smith v Eric S Bush, a firm etc HL 20-Apr-1989
In Smith, the lender instructed a valuer who knew that the buyer and mortgagee were likely to rely on his valuation alone. The valuer said his terms excluded responsibility. The mortgagor had paid an inspection fee to the building society and . .
Cited by:
Cited – DP Mann and others v Coutts and Co ComC 16-Sep-2003
The claimants were involved in litigation, They took certain steps on the understanding that the respondents had had deposited with them substantial sums in accounts under binding authorities. The bank had written a letter upon which they claim they . .
Cited – Jane Marianne Sandhar, John Stuart Murray v Department of Transport, Environment and the Regions CA 5-Nov-2004
The claimant’s husband died when his car skidded on hoar frost. She claimed the respondent was liable under the Act and at common law for failing to keep it safe.
Held: The respondent had not assumed a general responsibility to all road users . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Professional Negligence
Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.135570