Hope Capital v Alexander Reece Thompson (Record no. 121747)
[ view plain ]
| 000 -LEADER | |
|---|---|
| fixed length control field | 02298nas a22001817a 4500 |
| 007 - PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION FIXED FIELD--GENERAL INFORMATION | |
| fixed length control field | ta |
| 008 - FIXED-LENGTH DATA ELEMENTS--GENERAL INFORMATION | |
| fixed length control field | 230531e20231208xxk||||os||||o00| 0 eng d |
| 041 ## - LANGUAGE CODE | |
| Language code of text/sound track or separate title | eng |
| 245 ## - TITLE STATEMENT | |
| Title | Hope Capital v Alexander Reece Thompson |
| 260 ## - PUBLICATION INFORMATION | |
| Place of publication | [2023] EWHC 3157 (KB) |
| Publisher | Kings Bench |
| Date | 8 December 2023 |
| 520 ## - ABSTRACT | |
| Abstract | The Court looked again at the approach to evaluating the scope of a valuer’s duty and recoverable losses resulting from a negligent valuation. The dispute in Hope Capital Limited v Alexander Reece Thomson LLP [2023] was in respect of a negligent valuation by the Defendant (the Valuer) of a 15th century Grade II listed property in Surrey. The valuation was a secured lending valuation in respect of a short term bridging loan for around £2.215 million, with a low loan to value (LTV) ratio. In terms of assessing loss, the Court found that: 1) the factual reason that the value of security was not realised within 180 days of the default was due to the conduct of the Borrower (ie the dispute with the National Trust); 2) had it not been for the Borrower’s conduct and the subsequent effects of Covid-19 on the market, the Claimant would not have suffered any loss of capital advanced; and 3) by analogy with the case of Charles B Lawrence, the loss caused by the breach of the Valuer’s duty was therefore nil. This will be good news for valuers and their professional indemnity insurers as it will almost always be arguable that any change in value between the valuation date and the realisation date is attributable to changes in market conditions and/or other external factors for which the valuer is not responsible. Further, the Hope Capital decision makes it clear that notwithstanding that a valuation was critical to a decision to lend, that does not necessarily mean that the valuer is liable for all of the financial consequences of that transaction, even in a “no transaction” case. |
| 650 ## - KEYWORDS | |
| Keywords | VALUATION |
| 650 ## - KEYWORDS | |
| Keywords | PROFESSIONAL INDEMNITY INSURANCE |
| 650 ## - KEYWORDS | |
| Keywords | CALDERBANK LETTERS |
| 651 ## - SUBJECT ADDED ENTRY--GEOGRAPHIC NAME | |
| Geographic name | United Kingdom |
| 856 ## - ONLINE RESOURCE | |
| Uniform Resource Identifier | https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/kb/2023/3157 |
| Public note | Available on the National Archives case law database |
| 856 ## - ONLINE RESOURCE | |
| Uniform Resource Identifier | https://www.clydeco.com/en/insights/2023/12/hope-for-valuers-hope-capital-v-alexander-reece-th |
| Public note | Commentary by Clyde & Co |
| Withdrawn status | Lost status | Damaged status | Koha normalized classification for sorting | Not for loan | Home library | Current library | Shelving location | Date acquired | Total Checkouts | Full call number | Date last seen | Price effective from | Koha item type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ONLINE_JUDGMENT | Virtual | Virtual | Online | 27/12/2023 | ONLINE JUDGMENT | 27/12/2023 | 27/12/2023 | Law report |