Phillips v Ward: CA 1956

A negligent survey had been provided to prospective purchasers of a house. It would have cost andpound;7,000 to put the property into the condition in which it had been described in the report.
Held: The correct measure of damages was not andpound;7,000 but andpound;4,000. The latter figure represented the difference between the value of the property as it should have been described at the time of its acquisition and its value as described.
Denning LJ stated that: ‘The general principle of English law is that damages must be assessed at the date when the damage occurred, which is usually the same day as the cause of action arises . . ‘ and ‘The proper measure of damages is . . the difference between the value in its assumed good condition and the value in the bad condition which should have been reported to the client.’

Judges:

Denning LJ

Citations:

[1956] 1 WLR 471, [1956] 1 All ER 874

Cited by:

CitedDowns and Another v Chappell and Another CA 3-Apr-1996
The plaintiffs had suceeded in variously establishing claims in deceit and negligence, but now appealed against the finding that no damages had flowed from the wrongs. They had been sold a business on the basis of incorrect figures.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Damages, Professional Negligence

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.567831