Bratt v Jones [electronic resource]
Language: English Publication details: Chancery Division (Property Trusts and Probate list) [2024] EWHC 631 (Ch), 22 March 2024Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2024] EWHC 625 (KB). The claimant claimed damages from the defendant valuer in relation to his valuation of a freehold development site. The claimant argued that the court should reach a determination as to the true market value of the site as at June 2013, and find that the likely value was £8 million and that the defendant was negligent because his valuation was well outside a 10% margin. The claimant failed to show that the defendant valuer had been negligent where his valuation fell within the bracket of a reasonable range of values, which was plus or minus 15% of the most likely value determined by the court. The appropriate primary approach to valuation of the site was by reference to comparables, but that should be cross-checked by a residual valuation, since developer purchasers would have carried out their own detailed residual calculations in respect of the site, by reference to the anticipated sale proceeds less the costs of construction ‘i) For a valuer, like any other professional, to be found to be liable for professional negligence it is a fundamental "Bolam" requirement that they be found to have acted otherwise than in accordance with practices which are regarded as acceptable by a respectable body of opinion in the profession, recognising that there is scope for differences of reasonable professional opinion, and that the process of professional valuation is an art as much as a science; ii) But it is, in any event, a precondition of liability that the valuer's valuation should fall outside the range permitted to a non-negligent valuer in respect of that particular type or kind of valuation.’| Item type | Current library | Call number | Status | Date due | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | Virtual Online | ONLINE JUDGMENT (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | Available |
[2024] EWHC 625 (KB). The claimant claimed damages from the defendant valuer in relation to his valuation of a freehold development site. The claimant argued that the court should reach a determination as to the true market value of the site as at June 2013, and find
that the likely value was £8 million and that the defendant was negligent because his valuation was well outside a 10% margin. The claimant failed to show that the defendant valuer had been negligent where his valuation fell within the bracket of a reasonable range of values, which was plus or minus 15% of the most likely value determined by the court.
The appropriate primary approach to valuation of the site was by reference to comparables, but that should
be cross-checked by a residual valuation, since developer purchasers would have carried out their own detailed residual
calculations in respect of the site, by reference to the anticipated sale proceeds less the costs of construction
‘i) For a valuer, like any other professional, to be found to be liable for professional negligence it is a fundamental "Bolam" requirement that they be found to have acted otherwise than in accordance with practices which are regarded as acceptable by a respectable body of opinion in the profession, recognising that there is scope for differences of reasonable professional opinion, and that the process of professional valuation is an art as much as a science;
ii) But it is, in any event, a precondition of liability that the valuer's valuation should fall outside the range permitted to a non-negligent valuer in respect of that particular type or kind of valuation.’