Personal remarks
Series: Estates Gazette ; [03070 15 February 2003, 135(1)Publication details: 2003Subject(s): Summary: Discusses "Raja v Austin Gray" (CA Abs66380) (see also X119613 and WB3833-19) in which the CA overturned the QBD ruling that valuers acting on behalf of receivers in the repossession and resale of mortgaged property would owe a duty of care not only to clients but also to the borrower. Discusses the legal position of the receivers and the valuer with regards to duty of care. "Huish v Ellis" (QBD X1822) considered. CA held that the valuer (A) did not owe a direct duty of care to the borrower (R).| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Date due | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | ABS66470 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 121461-1001 |
Discusses "Raja v Austin Gray" (CA Abs66380) (see also X119613 and WB3833-19) in which the CA overturned the QBD ruling that valuers acting on behalf of receivers in the repossession and resale of mortgaged property would owe a duty of care not only to clients but also to the borrower. Discusses the legal position of the receivers and the valuer with regards to duty of care. "Huish v Ellis" (QBD X1822) considered. CA held that the valuer (A) did not owe a direct duty of care to the borrower (R).