The Estate of Mohammed Sabir Raja (Deceased) v Austin Gray (A Firm): QBD 31 Jul 2002

The claimant sought damages for negligent valuation of properties belonging to the deceased, but taken into receivership under charges taken by a company who in turn charged its assets to a bank. When the debenture was enforced, the charges were also enforced. The defendants denied a duty of care to the deceased. The defendants knew that the claimant’s equity of redemption would be affected by the sale prices.
Held: Medforth said that a receiver had duties in equity to the chargor. Both foreseeability and proximity were satisfied, though the contracts did not form a sufficient contractual chain, to impose a duty in contract.

Judges:

Mr Justice Buckley

Citations:

[2002] EWHC 1607 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

CitedBank of Credit and Commerce International (Overseas) Limited (In Liquidation); BCCI Holdings (Luxembourg) SA (In Liquidation); Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA (In Liquidation) v Price Waterhouse CA 13-Feb-1998
The special relationship between an auditor and a bank, meant that a duty of care could extend even to a second bank with its own auditors. In determining whether there had been an assumption of responsibility, the the relevant factors would include . .
CitedMedforth v Blake and others CA 26-May-1999
A receiver appointed to manage a business had duties over and above those of mere good faith. A receiver who failed to obtain discounts normally obtainable for supplies to the business might be liable for that failure. when considering the position . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromRaja v Austin Gray (A Firm) CA 19-Dec-2002
A mortgagee is at all times free to consult his own interests alone as to whether and when to exercise his power of sale. The relationship and duties owed by the receiver are equitable only. Peter Gibson LJ said: ‘(1) A mortgagee with the power of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Professional Negligence, Contract

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.174431