Survey of property prior to purchase – Purchaser relying upon survey – Defects discovered at later date – Question arising as to stability of roof – Purchaser seeking damages for negligence from surveyor – Judge weighing up evidence of experts – Judge accepting evidence of purchaser’s expert – No explanation given as to why surveyor’s evidence rejected – Standard of care – Weight of evidence – Appeal allowed
In 1986 the plaintiff, as prospective purchaser of a house built in the 1930s, sought advice from the defendant, a chartered structural surveyor. The defendant inspected the property and produced a written report which also contained the terms of his retainer which he described as being to ‘generally appraise the structure and also to investigate the defects described’. This he did, but problems arose later.
There were two complaints. The first concerned certain defects on the first floor (about which the trial judge came to no clear conclusion and was not considered on appeal) and the second, which only came to light after the plaintiff had initiated proceedings against the defendant alleging negligence for failing to investigate and report as he should have done, related to the condition of the roof. The plaintiff’s case was that the roof had been rendered unstable by work done since the house was built and was based on a report by the plaintiff’s expert, M. M’s opinion was that front bays and a rear extension had been added prior to 1986 to the original rectangular house, and in the process roof timbers had been cut and other interference with the integrity of the roof had caused it to lose its stability, so that thereafter it was in a state of ‘tenuous equilibrium’, which the defendant should have noticed and reported upon. A number of photos were produced at trial to support this thesis, but the judge simply summarised M’s evidence and that of the defendant’s expert witness, accepted M’s evidence about the original shape of the house, and gave judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of £5,497. The defendant appealed.
Held The appeal was allowed.
1. Close consideration of the photographs provided no support for the theory that the house had been altered after it was built and was contrary to the formidable body of evidence.
2.The standard of care to be expected of the defendant when inspecting and reporting to the plaintiff was that of the ordinary skilled man in his profession. The defendant had been aware that he was advising the prospective purchaser of a house built more than 50 years ago. He had not been asked to advise whether the roof timbering could be improved or whether it was up to 1990s standards. He had seen the roof and had reported upon it. In the circumstances no more was required of him.
3. It was necessary for a court to explain with some care precisely why a professional man was at fault when his reputation was at stake. The judge had not explained why he found the evidence of the defendant and that of his expert witness to be unacceptable, and such an explanation was required.
Paul Parker (instructed by Reynolds Porter Chamberlain) appeared for the appellant; Colin Lamb (instructed by Lawrence Wood, of Norwich) appeared for the respondent
