A claim in negligence or breach of contract against a valuer cannot succeed without establishing that the valuer failed to exercise proper professional skill, care and diligence in undertaking the valuation even if it falls outside the margin of error.
The Court of Appeal has confirmed this principle in Rowland Phillip Bratt v Nigel Lawson Jones [2025] EWCA Civ 562
The case concerned development land at Bodicote, Banbury, Oxfordshire, owned by Bratt which was subject to an option agreement with Banner Homes. Banner exercised its option to purchase the site at 90% of its market value in June 2013, the agreed valuation date.
Jones was appointed to determine the market value of the site. He valued it at £4,075,000 based on comparables and a residual appraisal. Banner acquired the land and developed it.
Bratt claimed that the true market value of the site was £7,800,000 and that the margin of error was 10% either side (£7,000,000-£8,600,000). He claimed in damages the difference between 90% of the site’s true value and 90% of £4,075,000, less agreed costs.
The judge based his decision on two principles: that the valuer must be found to have acted other than in accordance with accepted professional practices Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582 and the valuation must fall outside the range permitted to a non-negligent valuer K/S Lincoln v CB Richard Ellis [2010] PNLR 31 (plus or minus 5% for a standard residential property, 10% for a one-off property or 15% if the property has exceptional features).
He concluded that the correct market value of the site in June 2013 was £4,746,860 (which was broadly consistent with his residual valuation of £4,550,000) and that the appropriate margin of error was 10-15%. Jones’ valuation was within the margin of error allowable for a non-negligent valuation at 14.15% of the correct valuation. Bratt’s claim failed.
Bratt appealed, arguing the correct margin was 10%, and since Jones’ valuation was outside that margin the burden of proving that he had exercised due skill and care shifted to him.
The Court of Appeal disagreed. The legal burden of proving negligence rests with the claimant. The judge was entitled to reach the conclusion he did on the margin of error. It was a pre-condition for liability that Jones’ valuation fell outside the permissible bracket but even if it had done so the burden would still have rested on Bratt to show that Jones had acted negligently in accordance with Bolam principles Merivale Moore plc v Strutt & Parker [2000] PNLR 498.
Louise Clark is a property law consultant
