In the general run of actions for negligence against professional men it is not enough to show that another expert would have given a different answer. The issue is whether the defendant acted in accordance with practices which are regarded as acceptable by a respectable body of opinion in his profession. Where the complaint relates to the figures included in a valuation, there is an earlier stage that the court must be taken through before the need arises to address considerations of the Bolam type. Because the valuer cannot be faulted in any event for achieving a result that does not admit of some degree of error, the first question is whether the valuation, as a figure, falls outside the range permitted to a non-negligent valuer
Judges:
Hoffman LJ
Citations:
[1995] 1 EGLR 127
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Bolam 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 – Singer and Friedlander Ltd v Wood 1977
Valuers acting competently and professionally may reach widely varying conclusions as to value. There is a permissible margin of error, the ‘bracket’. What can properly be expected from a competent valuer using reasonable care and skill is that his . .
Cited by:
Cited – Lloyds 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 . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Professional Negligence
Updated: 12 December 2022; Ref: scu.182922