Claimant purchaser instructing defendant firm of surveyors to inspect property – Property subsequently requiring substantial remedial work – Claimant issuing proceedings – Whether defendants negligent in failing to draw attention to lack of diagonal bracing to trussed rafter in roof space – Claim dismissed
In 1984 the claimant purchased 47B Liverpool Road, Chester. The property was a first-floor flat in a two-storey building. Prior to the purchase, the claimant’s solicitor had instructed the defendants to inspect the property. The defendants were in partnership as a firm of estate agents, surveyors and valuers, known as Thomas C Adams. There were three inspections and three reports. One inspection and report was carried out before exchange of contracts, and two inspections and reports were carried out after exchange of contracts but before completion. In 1996 it became apparent that the gable end of the property was leaning outward and that extensive remedial work was required. The total cost of the remedial work was shared with another flat. The claimant sought to recover damages from the defendants in respect of her share of the costs. The essence of the claim was that in the third report, dated 18 September 1984, the defendants had failed to draw attention to the lack of diagonal bracing to the trussed rafter in the roof space. In the schedule of damages, the claim was put, first, on the basis of diminution in value, and, second, on the basis of repair cost.
Held: The claim was dismissed.
A defendant is not negligent if his opinion is the same as that of a number of responsible professionals. The evidence of both experts was to be approached with caution, but, on balance, it was accepted that the first defendant had done what a substantial number of general surveyors would have done. In September 1984 the first defendant had seen that the trusses were straight and that there were longitudinal battens. He had also taken the view that the walls were strong enough. Another general practice surveyor might have queried the strength of the walls to the extent of recommending the employment of a structural surveyor. However, it could not be concluded that the defendants had been negligent in not doing so, given that the claimant had declined to take previous advice in relation to the employment of a structural surveyor. Although in hindsight the first defendant had been mistaken in not noting, or reporting upon, the lack of diagonal bracing, the matter fell short of a breach of duty of care. In those circumstances, the defendants were not liable for negligence.
Simon Salzedo (instructed by Aaron & Partners, of Chester) appeared for the claimant; Julian Shaw (instructed by Mason Moore & Dutton, of Chester) appeared for the first defendant.
Thomas Elliott, barrister
