Valuation — Proposed mortgage advances — Alleged loss attributable to over-valuation — 29 properties in various parts of the country — Leave sought by defendants for 29 experts with local knowledge — Plaintiff seeking leave for appointment of court valuation expert — Issue decided in plaintiff’s favour — Order granted
The plaintiff’s business was providing mortgage finance. The first defendant was a firm of estate agents, surveyors and valuers. The first defendant carried out a survey and valuation of residential property upon the plaintiff’s instructions, which involved 29 properties in various parts of the country. The second to ninth defendants were eight individual valuers employed by the first defendant each concerned in preparing the reports and valuations relating to one or more of the properties. The plaintiff alleges a failure to exercise the standard of skill and care to be expected of a reasonably competent valuer, ie the only pleaded and relevant issue was one of negligence. The defendants sought leave for 29 experts, one for each property, on the basis that local experience would be necessary in each case. The court ordered expert valuation evidence to be limited to one witness for each party, but directed the parties to endeavour to agree a means by which the valuation experts could incorporate in their evidence any necessary information as to local conditions outside their personal knowledge. The parties failed to agree and the plaintiff issued a summons applying for the appointment of a court valuation expert under RSC Ord 40.
Held The order was granted.
1. The application for the appointment had to be approached without guidance from practice or authority, viz as one of principle.
2. There was no presumption either for or against the making of the appointment. The issue was whether it was likely to assist in the just, expeditious and economical disposal of the case.
3. Valuation experts normally offered expert opinions on two topics: the performance expected of a reasonably careful valuer; and second, the true value of the property.
4. The first topic was common to most, if not all, professional negligence claims. The second topic involved, significantly, expert evidence which had to be assessed by the tribunal of fact. There were differences with which a judge, as the tribunal of fact, could assess the relative credibility and weight of competing expert evidence in dealing with different topics. In particular, subjects which depended on a great deal of experience or “feel” were more difficult for a non-expert. Valuations were paradigmatic examples of that category.
5. The assistance of a court expert was therefore likely to be of substantial advantage in the just resolution of issues as to the true value of a property. As to expedition and economy, the appointment of a court expert would advance both if it promoted settlement, as in a significant proportion of cases, it was likely to do.
6. In dealing with the distinctive features of the present case, the defendants wanted local valuers because of their knowledge of comparable properties and “flavour” of the location. However, there could be no unfairness when both parties were in the same position and the defendant valuers could provide their outside expert’s evidence if they so chose, and their own evidence, in addition to the court expert’s report.
7. Further, the court expert was not merely a witness. The court could empower him to conduct his inquiry by any fair means even if (for example) that resulted in the incorporation of material which in the evidence of a witness would be inadmissible hearsay. Under r 2(3) the status of his report was to be treated as “information furnished to the court”.
Simon Monty (instructed by B P Collins & Co, of Gerrards Cross) appeared for the plaintiff; Stuart Catchpole (instructed by Davies Arnold Cooper) appeared for the defendants.
