Steward and another v Rapley
Steward and another v Rapley
- 1989
- Estates Gazette (1989) 15 EG 198-208(6) .
CA 19 February 1989. Appeal by the plaintiffs (S) from part of a decision awarding damages against the defendant (R), a surveyor , in respect of a claim for negligence in the structural survey and valuation of a property. In 1984 S instructed R to survey an older property in Mid Glamorgan whose asking price was £69,000. R put the market price at £60,000 and specifically stated that there was no dry-rot although he had discovered wet-rot . R concedes that the advice was negligent. The only question is the proper figure for compensation . The price paid for the property was £58,500. On discovery of the dry rot an independent surveyor agreed that the value of the property had fallen to £50,000. On further inspection he set the current value of the house at £33,200, the market value minus remedial costs, £26,800, exclusive of replacement carpets, professional fees, removal expenses, storage, accommodation and travelling expenses. The judge held that damages should be the difference betwe
CA 19 February 1989. Appeal by the plaintiffs (S) from part of a decision awarding damages against the defendant (R), a surveyor , in respect of a claim for negligence in the structural survey and valuation of a property. In 1984 S instructed R to survey an older property in Mid Glamorgan whose asking price was £69,000. R put the market price at £60,000 and specifically stated that there was no dry-rot although he had discovered wet-rot . R concedes that the advice was negligent. The only question is the proper figure for compensation . The price paid for the property was £58,500. On discovery of the dry rot an independent surveyor agreed that the value of the property had fallen to £50,000. On further inspection he set the current value of the house at £33,200, the market value minus remedial costs, £26,800, exclusive of replacement carpets, professional fees, removal expenses, storage, accommodation and travelling expenses. The judge held that damages should be the difference betwe