Raja v Austin Gray
Series: Estates Gazette ; [2003] 04 EG 151 (CS) (1) | Estates Gazette ; [2003] 13 EG 117-124(8)Publication details: 2003Subject(s): Summary: [2002] EWCA Civ 1965 19 December 2002. The respondent (R) owned properties that he had charged to a third party as security on loans. The third party went into receivership and exercised a power of sale over R's properties.The receivers appointed the appellant AG to value the properties. The first issue was whether the receivers owed a duty of care in equity to the deceased (R) in relation to the valuations of the properties. If not the case, then AG did not owe a duty of care to R. The second issue was whether AG owed a duty of care to any party other than the receivers as their clients. CA held that it was not just, fair and reasonable to treat AG as owing a duty of care directly to T. Appeal allowed (for HC judgment see X119613).| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Date due | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS66380 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 121158-1001 |
[2002] EWCA Civ 1965 19 December 2002. The respondent (R) owned properties that he had charged to a third party as security on loans. The third party went into receivership and exercised a power of sale over R's properties.The receivers appointed the appellant AG to value the properties. The first issue was whether the receivers owed a duty of care in equity to the deceased (R) in relation to the valuations of the properties. If not the case, then AG did not owe a duty of care to R. The second issue was whether AG owed a duty of care to any party other than the receivers as their clients. CA held that it was not just, fair and reasonable to treat AG as owing a duty of care directly to T. Appeal allowed (for HC judgment see X119613).