Negligence alleged — Valuation report for loan on mortgage — Loan of 100% of purchase price for purchase of end-of-terrace Victorian house at £19,500 — Defendant firm instructed to value by Halifax Building Society, the valuation fee being paid by borrowers — Claim for negligence made against defendant firm after a builder’s and an engineer’s report — Whether defendants in breach of duty of care to plaintiff purchasers, as laid down in Smith v Eric S Bush and, if so, what was the quantum of damages — Judge found on the evidence that liability was not proved against defendants, so that the question of damages did not arise — Defendants’ inspection and report had been done with great care — Firm a credit to surveyors’ profession — Plaintiffs ‘ill-advised young couple’
were a young couple who were about to be married before the purchase and were
married and moved into the house soon after —- Despite the usual advice by the
building society, the plaintiffs decided not to arrange for a full structural
survey; they were content to rely on the defendants’ valuation report — That
report had drawn attention to an old movement in the structure and the presence
of an old and enlarged tie-bar to restrain the gable wall — Further movement
was considered to be unlikely — Mention was made of deteriorating joinery, worn
paintwork and need to repair windows as well as lack of insulation in the roof
— A gutter needed replacement and a cement fillet around the chimney was
required —- However, the defendants valued the house at the agreed price of
£19,500 and recommended the maximum advance
of carrying out certain works (aided by an improvement grant) the plaintiffs’
builder encountered problems with a chimney stack and an engineer was called in
— He produced a formidable-looking list of defects and recommendations, which
prompted a claim for negligence against the defendants — The issues before the
judge were whether the defects described in the engineer’s report existed at
the date of the defendants’ inspection and, if so, whether they should have
been discovered by the defendants — The answers turned on the judge’s appraisal
of the expert evidence, which was conflicting but tended as the case went on to
indicate that the seriousness of the matters recorded in the engineer’s report
had been exaggerated — In the end, after a detailed examination of the evidence
on all the matters complained of, the judge came to the conclusion that the
case against the defendants had not been substantiated; their liability had not
been established — The question of quantum of damages did not arise, but the
judge made a few comments on items in the statement of claim
of his judgment the judge expressed the view that anyone buying a house of this
age should, in the absence of the vendors’ providing an appropriate certificate
to the contrary from an appropriate specialist firm, expect there to be small
amounts of timber decay and beetle attack here and there which might need
relatively inexpensive attention in years to come — In the present case the
possibility of modest problems with the timber had been adequately covered in
the defendants’ report
the judge said that he had formed an extremely high opinion of the
representatives of the defendants’ firm, who had been named in the case as
professional men of very considerable knowledge, ability, thoroughness and
integrity — No slur should be cast on the good name of the firm ‘by this
unfortunate and ill-advised young couple bringing this action’ — Action
dismissed
The following
case is referred to in this report.
Smith v Eric S Bush (a firm) [1989] 2
WLR 790; [1989] 2 All ER 514; [1989] 1 EGLR 169; [1989] 17 EG 68 & 18 EG
99, HL
This was an
action by the plaintiffs, Mr and Mrs Andrew Gibbs, against the defendants,
Arnold Son & Hockley, chartered surveyors, valuers and estate agents, of
Dereham, Norfolk, alleging negligence in a valuation survey and report carried
out by the defendants in respect of an end-terrace Victorian house at 1 Hyam
Road, Norwich.
Mervyn
Streatfield (instructed by Hansell Stevenson & Co, of Norwich) appeared on
behalf of the plaintiffs; Richard Seymour (instructed by Mills & Reeve
Francis, of Norwich) represented the defendants.
Giving
judgment, MR STEPHEN DESCH QC said: In 1982 a young couple, Mr Andrew Robert
Gibbs and Miss Anita Fincham, decided to buy their first house and get married.
He was a trainee architect earning about £5,500 to £6,000 a year, she was a
nurse doing agency nursing earning about £140 a week. They found 1 Hyam Road,
Norwich — an end-of-terrace Victorian house. Their offer of £19,500 was
accepted. (Mr Gibbs thought that the figure came first from the defendants. His
memory of various matters was plainly not very reliable and I am sure he is
wrong about this. I accept the defendants’ evidence that when they received the
written instructions to value from the Halifax Building Society the purchase
price of £19,500 was already inserted. In my judgment, that must have been
because the price had been agreed between vendor and purchaser.)
They sought a
100% mortgage from the Halifax Building Society, who had the house valued by
the defendants. The survey was done by Mr J E Hammond of that firm, a qualified
chartered surveyor. He spent about three quarters of an hour inspecting the
house and he wrote a report which, in accordance with the defendants’ practice,
was vetted and signed by a partner, Mr R J S Bramall [FRICS], after discussion
with Mr Hammond. The report is dated December 17 1982. After describing the
property, it contained the following general observations:
This mid-Victorian end terraced house is
conveniently located less than half a mile from the city centre in an
established residential area, but fronting a busy vehicular link between
Earlham and Dereham Roads. There is considerable evidence throughout the
property of stress cracking and structural movement. Repairs have been
undertaken, and an old and enlarged tie-bar has been inserted to restrain the
gable wall. In our opinion the movement is old and further movement is
unlikely. It is known that chalk workings have taken place in this area. The
early softwood joinery is deteriorating; paintwork is worn in parts, and if the
windows are to be retained a continuing programme of repairs are likely to be
necessary. The applicant should undertake to (1) Replace the rear gutter. (2)
Repair the cement fillet around the chimney where it is cracked. The roof is
not underfelted or insulated, and within the roof space there are no party
walls between the adjoining properties.
The reference
to chalk workings was included by Mr Bramall to sound a slight note of caution,
though in fact they were on the other side of the road. Mr Hammond valued the
house at the agreed price of £19,500 and certified it as suitable for a maximum
advance. As the defendants’ witnesses explained, valuation is an inexact
science, and if the parties’ agreed price is about right, it is irresponsible
for the valuer to protect his own back by valuing at a slightly lower figure,
because this means that the sale may well go off, and the valuer’s fee, which
the buyer has had to pay, will effectively have been wasted.
Despite
standard-form recommendations from the Halifax to have their own full survey
done, Mr Gibbs and Miss Fincham, like most people, did not. They relied on the
defendants’ valuation survey.
Exchange of
contracts promptly took place, and the purchase was completed in January 1983.
Mr Gibbs and Miss Fincham were married in March 1983, and Mrs Gibbs, as she had
then become, moved into the house with her husband. They began certain works to
the house with an improvement grant from the local authority. Early in the
course of these, the builder, Mr Moles, encountered problems with the chimney
stack which ran through the centre of the house, and an engineer, Mr Castle,
was called in. He inspected on May 25 1983 and produced a report on May 27 1983
which reads as follows:
1 Hyam Road, Norwich.
The above property is at the end of a two
storey terrace with an access passage between the adjacent dwelling at ground
floor only with a first floor over. Work has been carried out to expose the
structure at the rear end roof. The following observations were made:
(a) There has been settlement to front and rear
corners and a tie-bar inserted to restrain the gable wall.
(b) The ground floor joists are of minimal size
and there are signs of rotting at the ends bearing at the basement wall.
(c) The first floor joists are also of minimal
size, but there are no obvious signs of deterioration of the supports.
(d) The ceiling joists shows signs of woodworm
attack.
(e) The main chimney stack is cracked throughout
with cracks in bricks and mortar joints, and there is complete lack of
homogeneity. Limewater joints show lack of adhesion.
(f) Separation has taken place between the gable
wall and the internal partition wall.
(g) Brick arch over ground floor front window has
dropped.
Recommendations:
(a) Check drains for leaks and damage, and check
the foundations adjacent to suspected leaking drains.
(b) Replace ground-floor joists and seat on
bitumen felt.
(c) First-floor joists are well below building
regulation standard, but there is no apparent risk of structural failure. It is
advisable, in the circumstances, to replace floor joists and boarding.
(d) Replace ceiling joists damaged by attack.
(e) Demolish and rebuild chimney stack.
(f) Refix tie-bar into new chimney. Provide wall
ties fixed to new floor.
(g) Reset brick arches over windows to front
elevation.
And then it is
convenient to letter the remaining recommendations, though he did not.
(h) Repoint external brickwork.
(j) Apply preservation treatment to all timber.
(k) Stitch brickwork into cracks along passage.
(l) Under-pin footings to corners where
necessary.
On June 2
1983, solicitors on behalf of Mr and Mrs Gibbs made a claim for negligence
against the defendants. On June 13 Mr G A Hockley [FRICS], the defendants’
senior partner, Mr Bramall, Mr Hammond, and an independent engineer, Mr Canham,
inspected the house, and Mr Bramall and Mr Canham each made a detailed report
on their findings and conclusions. These were that there was nothing seriously
wrong with the house and that Mr Hammond’s original report was entirely well
founded (though much more could be seen in June 1983 than in December 1982
because of opening up during building works and so on).
Mr Hockley
approved Mr Bramall’s and Mr Hammond’s valuation. All three were professional
people of obvious standing and integrity, as well as being most impressive
witnesses, and I have no doubt that if any of them had thought that there was
anything wrong with Mr Hammond’s original valuation they would have said so and
not sought to cover it up. Their views were made known to Mr Gibbs, but he did
not accept them, and in January 1984 this action was begun.
In December
1984 a chartered surveyor, Mr R H Wheeler [ARICS], inspected and valued the
house on behalf of the plaintiffs and, on the basis of the defects alleged by
Mr Castle, valued it at £10,000 as at December 1982. In October 1985 a
chartered surveyor, Mr A E Holt [FRICS], inspected and reported on behalf of
the defendants. He considered that the alleged defects had been misinterpreted
and grossly exaggerated, and he vindicated Mr Hammond’s report and valuation.
If the alleged defects were substantiated, he considered the appropriate
valuation was £15,000.
Because of a
possible conflict of interest, Mr Wheeler had to drop out of the case and was
replaced by a colleague, Mr M M Kingston [BSc ARICS], who felt able to adopt Mr
Wheeler’s report without ever having inspected the property. Mr Hammond in
evidence made clear that he felt at the time that he owed a substantial
responsibility to the plaintiffs, and the House of Lords in Smith v Eric
S Bush [1989] 2 WLR 790* has affirmed that he owed them a duty of care in
law.
*Editor’s note: Also reported at [1989] 1
EGLR 169; [1989] 17 EG 68 and 18 EG 99.
The issue on
liability is thus whether the defendants were in breach of their duty of care
to the plaintiffs. In order to shorten that issue, Mr Holt and Mr Kingston
discussed the matter and produced a most helpful written agreement setting out
their joint views on the defects (a) to (g) in Mr Castle’s report quoted above,
and the costs of remedying those defects as they jointly viewed them to have
been.
Their
agreement gave 1989 prices. They agreed that 1982-83 prices would have been
about half. They put no figure on item (a), but counsel agreed that, taking the
figure from the statement of claim, the maximum that could be put on this was
£880. Thus revised, the agreement between Mr Holt and Mr Kingston reads as
follows:
(a) Left to engineers — first statement of claim
— maximum £880.
(b) Agreed ground floor joists of minimal size.
No inherent defects simply because of size. Not visible before interior
stripped out. If had been visible, wet rot in ends could have been dealt with
without renewing joists. Cut off ends and use joist hangers. Maximum cost £250.
(c) No disagreement.
(d) Treatment sufficient — renewal unnecessary.
Maximum cost £25.
(e) Grant officer says 20.12.82. — ‘Reset pots
and renew flaunching to stack.’ Agreed
need for this was visible. Not agreed whether or not cracks in chimney breast
in roof space were visible. If were visible, agreed remedy was to grout
fractures and render breast. Cost of repairs to damage in breast in roof space
and to pots and flaunchings is — 1982 prices — £500.
(f) If this was a defect needing remedy, it could
have been tackled by inserting steel straps at two levels: (i) First floor
joists (ii) First floor ceiling joists — cost £40.
(g) Agreed old movement — no remedial action
necessary. Total of these figures at 1982-3 prices was £1,695.
As the
authorities, including Smith v Eric S Bush, make clear, there is
a world of difference between a valuation survey and a structural survey.
Defects which may be important for the latter may be relatively unimportant for
the former. The cost of repairing defects is not the same as the difference in
value — if any. Usually the former will be greater. The amount of time spent on
a structural survey and its thoroughness will be far greater than in the case
of a valuation survey.
In addition to
these points, valuers may legitimately differ about the value of a house, even
on identical assessments of its physical condition. Consequently, before it can
be said that a valuation is not only wrong but negligently wrong, it has to be
shown that the defects which the valuer failed to take into account add up, in
cost of repair terms, to a substantial sum. Accordingly, upon seeing the
agreement between the surveyors, the immediate reaction of the defendants’ counsel,
Mr Seymour, was that that was an end to the plaintiffs’ case. That was my view
too. I accordingly invited the plaintiffs’ counsel, Mr Streatfield, to explain
what case they still had. He was unable to do so, but he expressed the hope
that Mr Kingston might be able to. In this highly unsatisfactory fashion the
action got under way.
I did not feel
it proper to accede to an application by Mr Seymour at that stage to dismiss
the action as an abuse of the process of the court, since Mr Streatfield hoped,
upon taking instructions from Mr Kingston, to be able to explain the matter and
believed that, despite the agreement, Mr Kingston would somehow stand by the
£9,500 difference in value. In addition, because of the time available for the
trial of the action, we could not afford to waste much time while further
investigations were made.
Upon liability
there were two issues. First, did the defects as described by Mr Castle
exist? Second, if so, should Mr Hammond
have discovered them in December 1982?
These two issues turned entirely upon the expert evidence. Mr Gibbs was
cross-examined on the basis that he had always intended to do substantial works
to the house, and used the defects supposedly discovered by Mr Castle to
inflate a claim for an improvement grant from the local authority, thus getting
them to finance, in part, works of his choosing which they would not otherwise
have done. This would have involved fraud by Mr Gibbs and, since he denied the
allegations, perjury. While the cross-examination was understandable in the
light of a number of the documents, in my judgment the allegations were not
made out.
Accordingly, I
turn to consideration of Mr Castle’s list of defects. Mr Streatfield accepted
that in the light of the evidence and the small amounts involved, he could not
rely — the purpose of the action — upon items (c), (d) and (g) and that (b) and
(f) were make weights with items (a) and (e). The chief dispute revolved around
(e), the chimney stack, since this involved the largest amount of money and
necessitated the plaintiffs’ leaving the house for two months during July and
August 1983. I will deal with the surviving items in turn.
(a) The cracks at the front and
rear corners of the house in the passageway.
The passageway and hence the approximate
position of the cracks may be seen on the defendants’ drawing dated June 15
1983, which also shows the camera positions for the photographs which they then
took which are before the court. The cracks at the front may be seen in the
plaintiffs’ photographs 4 and 5. Part of the crack at the rear, viewed from
somewhere inside the cellar, may be seen in the plaintiffs’ photograph 10. Mr
Castle said that the cracks were
and leaking drains and substantial improvement of foundations was necessary. Mr
Kingston said that the defendants should have advised further investigation of
the cracks and inferred that it would have justified Mr Castle’s views. Mr
Gibbs said that any warning about possible problems with the house would have
put the plaintiffs off buying because they had no money to spare.
All the
defendants’ witnesses said that the cracks were very old, probably occurring
soon after the property was built, had not increased since and were of no
significance. Mr Hammond had seen those at the front of the house at the time
of his original inspection. He was not sure about that at the rear as seen from
the cellar; this may have been obscured by furniture and other items stacked
there. He had seen other cracks as well, hence his comment about them in his
report. In his opinion, and that of the rest of the defendants’ witnesses,
those cracks were unimportant, needed no further comment or warning and could,
if desired, be repaired easily and cheaply. They considered that any
insufficiency of the ground beneath, found by Mr Castle, was the result of what
they say was an inappropriate and over-vigorous drains test organised by him
which washed out the joints of these old drains.
I found the
defendants’ witnesses’ detailed explanations of their views entirely
convincing, and I found them, as witnesses, far more impressive than Mr Castle
or Mr Kingston. I accept the evidence about these cracks given by the
defendants’ witnesses and acquit the defendants of any negligence on this
account. If I had formed a different view, a maximum cost of repair of £880
would hardly have produced a negligently wrong valuation, but the need for a
warning would have done. However, I reject Mr Kingston’s evidence on this
aspect and that of Mr Castle on which it was based.
(b) Wet rot in the ends of the ground-floor
joists.
This is shown
in the defendants’ photograph 24 and the plaintiffs’ photographs 11 and 14 to
19. This was not visible when Mr Hammond inspected because it was all concealed
by a ceiling which, as I find, was intact. He looked at the floors in so far as
he could in an occupied house and tested them by the approved method of jumping
on them. He found no undue unevenness or springiness in them having regard to
the age of the house.
In my
judgment, anyone buying a house of this age should, in the absence of the
vendors’ providing an appropriate certificate to the contrary from an
appropriate specialist firm, expect there to be small amounts of timber decay
and beetle attack here and there which may need relatively inexpensive
attention in years to come. In this case there was no such certificate and the
possibility of modest problems with the timber was, in my judgment, adequately
covered by Mr Hammond’s warning, ‘The early softwood joinery is deteriorating’,
even though largely directed at visible joinery.
I accept the
evidence of the defendants’ witnesses that the rot revealed after Mr Hammond’s
inspection was not serious and could be dealt with at no great expense and with
no great urgency. This is reflected in the surveyors’ agreement from which,
upon this point, Mr Kingston did not resile. Mr Hammond was justified in
thinking that there was nothing wrong with the joists material to his
valuation.
(e) The chimney.
Mr Moles, the
builder, found cracks in the chimney. Mr Castle was called in and examined
them. He gave conflicting evidence about how serious they were. In the course
of cross-examination, first of all, he said, according to my note: ‘The chimney
had been perfectly stable for many years. If no one had interfered with it
there would probably not have been any need to do anything to it, but the
chimney was not as sound as when first built.’
Later in
cross-examination he said, according to my note: ‘On reflection, I want to
alter what I said before lunch. In time the chimney would have needed repair
because of the cracks. I would not like to speculate how soon.’ He said, however, that the real reason why
urgent demolition and rebuilding of the chimney was needed was because Mr
Moles, having begun work on it, had found that the bricks inside the chimney
were friable and a sound bond could not be achieved. It was later put to Mr
Castle that the defendants’ photographs 18 and 19 showed that a sound bond
could be and had been achieved and that photograph 18 in particular shows what
was plainly intended to be a permanent repair which would be wholly
inappropriate if demolition and rebuilding were necessary or intended. Mr
Castle largely agreed with all that. As an advocate of the need to rebuild the
chimney, he thus became totally unreliable.
The
defendants’ witnesses said that such cracks as there were in the chimney were
unimportant and could be repaired with no great expense or urgency. I accept
this and it is borne out by the agreement between the surveyors. The
explanation of what had happened may well, in my judgment, have been correctly
diagnosed by Mr Canham, though since these matters were not put to the
plaintiffs, I do not rely on them for my conclusions. That explanation was as
follows, according to my note of Mr Canham’s evidence on this point:
The plaintiffs’ drawing shows that Mr
Gibbs intended to remove the back of both hearths at ground floor level, and
connect them. In old brickwork this was most unwise. Defendants’ photograph 18
shows this job partly done. The removal of the side wall made the situation
worse. The photograph also shows that contrary to what the builder had told Mr
Castle, he had been able to repair the front section of the chimney. At this
stage, three things could be done.
(a) Reinstate the back of both hearths.
(b) Remove and rebuild the whole chimney in new
brickwork.
(c) Temporarily support the chimney above the
ground floor hearths, rebuild below that level in new brickwork with
intercommunicating hearths, and remove the temporary support.
Mr Kingston
said that whatever works were necessary to the chimney, Mr Hammond should have
included in his report a warning along the following lines:
It was noted that there was cracking and
damaged brickwork in the chimney stack in the roof void, and a competent
builder should be called upon to examine.
Mr Kingston
added that to allow for the risk of further trouble he would have reduced the
valuation by £1,000 on this account. In the light of Mr Gibbs’ evidence this
would have resulted in the plaintiffs’ not buying. The need for such a warning
depends on the visibility of the cracks and their seriousness. At the time of
Mr Hammond’s inspection the chimney was plastered over at all three floor
levels. It is agreed that at ground- and first-floor levels there was no sign
of trouble. In the cellar there was a hole shown after removal of plaster in
defendants’ photograph 22, but the cellar was tightly packed with furniture and
so on and Mr Hammond could not be expected to have it removed to gain access.
Nor on a valuation survey could he be blamed for not giving warning of this in
the light of his findings generally. Anyway I accept that had he seen what
photographs 22 and 23 show after removal of the plaster this would not have
altered his valuation nor have caused him to give any further warning about
cracks than he in fact did.
The only other
place where Mr Hammond could have seen any cracks in the chimney was in the
roof space. It is accepted that it was his duty to do no more than a head and
shoulders inspection through the roof hatch, which happened to be some distance
from the chimney (see Mr Hammond’s drawing). Mr Castle, who went into the roof
space, described the cracks as follows, according to my note:
In the roof space there were cracks in
the chimney, and it was blackened next to the cracks where smoke had seeped
through. These cracks were present above bedroom 2, but not accessible for a
valuer. There were cracks above bedroom I accessible to a valuer via the access
hatch over bedroom 3, but I cannot say whether, on a head and shoulders
inspection from that hatch with a torch, they would have been reasonably
noticeable to a valuer making an inspection for a building society mortgage.
Most such chimneys in Norwich do have cracks, and these may or may not be
important. Also I cannot say whether or not the smoke staining would have been
reasonably visible to such a valuer. Roof spaces are dirty places. I am
hesitant to say whether or not the cracks or the smoke staining would have been
reasonably noticeable to a valuer making a head and shoulders inspection from
the access hatch.
That evidence was given in chief.
In the light
of his overreaction on other matters and what one can see of the chimney in
plaintiffs’ photograph 20, I consider that Mr Castle’s account of the
seriousness of these cracks was exaggerated. But his evidence did not begin to
establish that Mr Hammond should have seen them. The coup de grace to
this part of the case was given by Mr Holt, who pointed out that from the
access hatch to the chimney was a distance of some 15 ft, and the chimney was
at an angle to it of some 11 degrees, so that one would not see a crack from
the access hatch unless it was about 1 in to 2 in wide, in which case the
chimney would not still be standing.
In
cross-examination it was suggested to Mr Hammond that the state of the chimney
pots gave rise to cause for concern. I wholly accept his evidence that it did
not.
Accordingly,
in my judgment, there were at the time of Mr Hammond’s inspection no signs of
deterioration of the chimney stack which he could reasonably have been expected
to have seen but failed to see, and in addition, had he seen the signs of
cracking which later became visible, he would have been justified in concluding
that
valuation.
(f) Separation of the gable and partition wall.
The agreement
between the surveyors really knocks this point out. I accept Mr Hammond’s
evidence that there was no sign of trouble here when he inspected. I accept the
evidence of him and other witnesses that subsequent opening up showed that in
the past there had been differential movement at this point, but that there was
no continuing movement, no further action was really necessary, and that to fix
steel ties would be an inexpensive belt and braces job.
The foregoing
findings suffice to dispose of the case against the defendants on liability,
but two further comments on the evidence of Mr Kingston are appropriate. First,
the reduction in value of the house which he adopted was based substantially on
the cost of the works of about £16,500 less the grant of £7,500, but these
included substantial items of the plaintiffs’ choice unconnected with the
defects now complained of. The premise was therefore misleading and
inappropriate.
Second, in
cross-examination, Mr Kingston effectively conceded that there was no case
against the defendants. My note of the relevant parts of his evidence, verified
by reference to that of others, is as follows:
If 1 Hyam Road was in good condition,
£19,500 was a fair price in 1982; £21,950 — the asking price — would be
slightly on the high side. If the only defects were those described in the
defendant’s report I would be happy to accept their figure. 1982 cost figures
for the items in our agreement total £1,695. This is the maximum difference in
the value of the house because of the defects of which we now know. Valuers in
this sphere would legitimately differ by about 5%, ie about £1,000 here.
£19,500 less £1,695 produces a margin of difference of 8.6%. I do not consider
that that margin means that the defendants were negligent.
In the light
of my findings on liability, quantum does not arise, but for completeness I
will say a few words about the claim as made in para 10 of the amended
statement of claim.
(1) Difference in value. The difference in value of
£9,500 was based on a false premise. A difference of cost of repair of £1,695
would not produce any significant difference in value. Mr Holt’s hypothetical
figure of £4,500 was not investigated in evidence, and I do not think that it
had survived his agreement with Mr Kingston.
(2) Emergency work.
(3) Interest on loans.
(4) Accommodation and removal costs.
None of these
were proved.
A claim for
general damages for the dislocation of moving out for two months was argued but
has not been pleaded. Mr Streatfield claimed £500 per month without citation of
any of the numerous authorities upon the point. The constraints of time
prevented me from doing my own research. Mr Seymour argued that the plaintiffs
would anyway have suffered great inconvenience from the works of their choice
and were better off having to move out, which they were able to do very
inexpensively as things turned out.
I consider
that there is force in that argument. Had I been in the plaintiffs’ favour on
liability and awarded them damages for significant difference in value, and had
a claim for general damages been pleaded, I would have awarded them £200 for
two months’ loss of their home. This might well have been overgenerous.
(5) Delay in the first plaintiff’s completing his
professional training. This was not established.
In conclusion,
I should say that I formed an extremely high opinion of Mr Hockley, Mr Bramall
and Mr Hammond as professional men of very considerable knowledge, ability, thoroughness
and integrity. Mr Hammond’s inspection and report were done with great care.
The firm appears to me to be a credit to the surveyors’ profession and I trust
that no slur has been or will be cast upon its good name by this unfortunate
and ill-advised young couple bringing this action.
The action was dismissed with costs in
defendants’ favour, the order not to be enforced without the leave of the
court, and legal aid taxation of plaintiffs’ costs was ordered.
