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 in his claim because of those negligent errors, even though the total valuation figure was not negligent.
Held: If the valuation that has been reached cannot be impugned as a total, then, however, erroneous the method or its application by which the valuation has been reached, no loss has been sustained, because, within the Bolam principle, it was a proper valuation. This focuses on the end result rather than the process by which the valuer reached the end result. Though there was a fault in the process of calculation, none the less a proper and acceptable process could properly have resulted in no, or no perceptible, difference to the end valuation; the figure in fact reached by was acceptable on the Bolam principle. If it is shown even at the first stage (whether the valuation fell outside the proper range of valuations results) that the valuer did not adopt an unprofessional practice or approach, then that may be taken into account in considering whether his valuation contained an unacceptable degree of error. Where the valuation is shown to be outside the acceptable limit, that may be a strong indication that negligence has in fact occurred.
Judges:
Mr Robin Stewart QC
Citations:
[1992] 2 EGLR 142
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
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 . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Professional Negligence, Damages
Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.184176