Image from Google Jackets

Beaumont v Humberts

Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (8829) 23 July 1988, 104-114(6)Publication details: 1988Subject(s): Summary: QBD 19 February 1988 In this action the plaintiff Mr Beaumont (B) sued a firm of surveyors Humberts (H) in respect of a valuation for reinstatement insurance purposes of a listed house. Eighteen months after the valuation was carried out the house was badly damaged by a fire . B, having received £175,000 from his insurers, sued H in negligence alleging that the proper reinstatment figure should be £300,000. B also took action against the bank and H`s solicitors for alleged failure to warn him of the consequences of a disclaimer of liability included in the bank`s mortgage report . QBD dismissed the cases against the bank and the solicitors on the ground that as B did not himself see the disclaimer or know about it, and H did not expect any disclaimer to be sent to B, it had not relevance to H`s liability . Found on evidence that H had not been negligent in deciding not to value on the basis of the exact replication of the property. Action dismissed.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS39544 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 17394-1001

QBD 19 February 1988 In this action the plaintiff Mr Beaumont (B) sued a firm of surveyors Humberts (H) in respect of a valuation for reinstatement insurance purposes of a listed house. Eighteen months after the valuation was carried out the house was badly damaged by a fire . B, having received £175,000 from his insurers, sued H in negligence alleging that the proper reinstatment figure should be £300,000. B also took action against the bank and H`s solicitors for alleged failure to warn him of the consequences of a disclaimer of liability included in the bank`s mortgage report . QBD dismissed the cases against the bank and the solicitors on the ground that as B did not himself see the disclaimer or know about it, and H did not expect any disclaimer to be sent to B, it had not relevance to H`s liability . Found on evidence that H had not been negligent in deciding not to value on the basis of the exact replication of the property. Action dismissed.