Our lawyers specialise in litigation and alternative dispute resolution in relation to property & conveyancing negligence. We will guide you through any stage in your litigation or settlement process whether you are a litigant in person seeking legal advice or you have instructed solicitors and want a second opinion on strategy.
Check Your Litigation Case ✔
We analyse your case prospects. We deliver strategic legal advice at your first fixed fee meeting. We get optimal legal results. Want our opinion on your case? Click below or call our lawyers in London on ☎ 02071830529
After extensive rebuilding works between 2009 and 2011, a cliffside property in Devon was offered for sale, following which the eventual purchasers instructed a surveyor to survey the property and prepare a RICS HomeBuyer’s report. The surveyor was concerned about the general quality of the rebuilding works, in which circumstances a ‘Professional Consultancy Certificate’ (PCC) was the best form of ‘insurance’ in relation to concerns about the standard and quality of the rebuilding works.
However, the surveyor failed to refer to the need for a PCC in his report. When he was asked about this by the eventual purchasers, he said that “it would not be unreasonable to ask for this” and that the purchasers should seek advice from their solicitors. Following the completion of the purchase for £1.2 million, the purchasers received advice (not from the surveyor) that the rebuilding works had been done so badly that the property would need to be demolished and rebuilt.
The Court’s decision
The High Court held that the surveyor was negligent for failing to draw the purchasers’ attention to the defects prior to completion and for failing to advise the purchasers to obtain a PCC (even though the prior rebuilding works at the property had been completed under the supervision of architects and not with the benefit of an NHBC scheme). Roger Ter Haar QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, held that if the surveyor had given different advice, the purchasers would not have gone through with the purchase.
On the issue of damages, the surveyor attempted to argue that he should only be liable for the reduction in the value of the property that arose from the defects that he should have reported on (but did not). However, the purchasers argued that the amount of damages should be determined by the difference between the value of the property as reported and the value of the property with the defects that in fact existed (rather than simply those defects the surveyor should have noticed and reported).
The High Court agreed with the purchasers, and calculated the diminution in value of the property as being £750,000; with £376,000 having already been paid by the purchasers’ solicitors and the architects who had supervised the defective rebuilding works, the surveyor was left to pay £374,000 in damages.
The surveyor obtained permission to appeal the High Court’s measure of the purchasers’ loss before the Court of Appeal. However, the Court of Appeal held that the surveyor had a duty of care to the purchasers “not only to inspect and report properly on the condition of the property; he was also obliged to make appropriate recommendations as to any further investigations which he thought necessary”.
As a result, the Court of Appeal held that the measure of loss applied by the High Court against the surveyor was appropriate because no other measure of loss would have adequately compensated the purchasers for the consequences of the surveyor’s negligence.
Book an Initial Consultation with Our Expert Property & Conveyancing Negligence Lawyers
Our London Property & Conveyancing Negligence Solicitors and Barristers provide bespoke professional advice. We invite you to contact us so one of our legal team can assess your dispute and see how we can best assist you.
Our multi-disciplinary practice consists of dispute resolution specialist solicitors and barristers who have market-leading experience in handling multi-million pound litigation cases and have a proven track record of bringing complex claims to settlement though alternative forms of dispute resolution (“ADR”), when necessary.
We can subsequently provide urgent help, advice or representation from our expert team of leading property & conveyancing negligence lawyers. Call or email us to start the process of instructing us; our property & conveyancing negligence team are waiting to help.
LIMITATION ACT 1980 – WARNING
The Limitation Act 1980 sets out strict statutory deadlines within which you must bring litigation claims. Your legal rights will become irreversibly time-barred if you fail to take legal action (or defend a claim on time). Therefore, you should seek specific legal advice about your legal dispute at the very first opportunity so that you understand the time you have left. Failure to take advice or delay in taking action can be fatal to your prospects of success.
Please note that for regulatory reasons we do not offer any free advice.