Negligent valuation — Evidence — Admissibility — Appellants purchasing filling station after obtaining valuation from respondents — Further report showing remedial works needed — Whether report admissible as evidence of respondent’s negligence — Appeal allowed
The appellants purchased a petrol filling station after obtaining a mortgage valuation report from the respondent, valuing the property at the asking price of £162,000. After exchange of contracts, and a few days before completion, the mortgagor requested a further survey to check for ground contamination. The report was produced after completion, and indicated that the appellants might have to carry out substantial remedial works at a cost of up to £30,000.
The appellants claimed damages from the respondent, alleging that it had been negligent in failing to recommend the further report or to reserve or qualify its valuation until one had been obtained. The appellants relied upon the report as evidence by which to prove their claim, and the respondent did not dispute its authenticity or admissibility. However, the recorder, trying a preliminary issue as to admissibility, ruled that the report could not be presented as evidence. On an appeal against that decision, the appellants contended that: (i) it was not necessary, for the purpose of admissibility, to prove that the report’s contents were objectively correct; and (ii) they could rely upon the mere existence of the report because of the effect that it would have had on a reasonably competent valuer.
Held: The appeal was allowed.
Since the report had been accepted as genuine, and since both parties had been content to treat it as part of the evidence and to cross-examine expert witnesses on it, there was nothing to prevent it from being admitted as evidence. The judge could then have assessed its reliability with the assistance of experts from both sides. He had not provided clear reasons for his decision on admissibility, and that decision should therefore be overturned.
Philip Butler (instructed by Merritt & Co) appeared for the appellants; Ivor Collett (instructed by PI Brokerlink) appeared for the respondent.
Sally Dobson, barrister
