Valuation — Defendant’s report on condition of property — Minor works carried out on basis of report — Structural works later found to be required — Value of property limited to cleared site value — Whether defendant negligent in advice on stability of property — Court refusing plaintiff’s application to call further evidence — Judgment for plaintiff for £2 — Court of Appeal allowing appeal — Plaintiff entitled to agreed damages
In 1985 the plaintiff was considering the purchase of a two-bedroom semi-detached house at 16 Barnfield Road, Torquay, for £38,000. The house was in poor condition. The plaintiff wished to buy the house and went to a building society for a mortgage. A structural report carried out by the defendant revealed that movement had occurred at the front of the house and that settlement might be a problem in the area where the house was. The plaintiff then asked the defendant to survey the house and assess the cause of the movement and to advise on necessary works. The defendant warranted that he would carry out the survey and report thereon with all reasonable care and skill. Work was subsequently carried out at a cost of £420.
Later the plaintiff decided to sell the house. He put it on the market at an asking price of £89,000. A survey showed that the movement was caused by subsidence so that underpinning was required. The value of the house as appeared from the defendant’s report had been £39,000 whereas the cost of carrying out the necessary structural repairs was such that the property had no more than a cleared site value of £18,000. He claimed the sum of £20,000 against the defendant alleging that he had been negligent in the performance of his contract to provide the plaintiff with advice with reference to the structural stability of the house. The county court gave judgment for the plaintiff for £2 against the defendant. On the plaintiff’s appeal the main issue was whether the judge was right to hold that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the house required underpinning from a structural point of view.
Held The appeal was allowed; judgment for the plaintiff in the agreed sum of £18,000.
1. The defendant’s report as to the works to be carried out on the house for structural purposes was defective and misleading in saying that “the amount of movement likely to occur in the future was considered to be minimal and not detrimental to the structural security of the property”. The report was made in breach of duty because what the defendant described as the movement likely to occur in the future and that which was recommended as the work to be done for structural purposes, must be an opinion expressed as a result of the exercise of necessary care and skill. The defendants had not exercised the necessary case and skill.
2. A buyer, unless he said otherwise was not only concerned with structural damage likely to occur while he was in the immediate future living in the house, but also with structural damage which was likely to occur at a more remote date of which the impact upon him would result from the effect of the apparent likelihood of structural damage upon his ability to sell the house.
3. The basic skill and experience of the defendant had not been shown to be lacking. He was caught in an unfortunate set of circumstances in which he wrote a short report intended to serve his client swiftly and effectively and without a screen of qualifications for his own protection. Nevertheless his client was entitled to receive a report which dealt adequately with the advice required or a report which expressly stated that it was limited in some particular way.
Ralph Wynn-Griffiths (instructed by Boyce Hatton, of Torquay) appeared for the plaintiff; Christopher Gosland (instructed by Lloyd Bragg, of Bristol) appeared for the defendant.
