Gibbs and Another v Arnold Son and Hockley
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (1989) 45 EG 156-163(4)Publication details: 1989Subject(s): Summary: QBD 12 May 1989 Action by Mr and Mrs Gibbs (G) against a firm of chartered surveyors , valuers and estate agents (A), alleging negligence in a mortgage valuation report carried out by A in respect of an end-terrace Victorian house . Despite advice from their building society, G decided not to have a full structural survey and relied on A`s valuation report which had drawn attention to various defects in the property. In the course of carrying out certain works G`s builders encountered problems with a chimney stack and an engineer was called in. He produced a formidable list of defects and recommendations which prompted a claim for negligence against A. The issue before the judge was whether the defects described in the engineer`s report existed at the date of A`s inspection and if so, whether they should have been discovered by A. After detailed examination of all the evidence the judge came to the conclusion that the case against A had not been substantiated; their liability had not| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS41741 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 32175-1001 |
QBD 12 May 1989 Action by Mr and Mrs Gibbs (G) against a firm of chartered surveyors , valuers and estate agents (A), alleging negligence in a mortgage valuation report carried out by A in respect of an end-terrace Victorian house . Despite advice from their building society, G decided not to have a full structural survey and relied on A`s valuation report which had drawn attention to various defects in the property. In the course of carrying out certain works G`s builders encountered problems with a chimney stack and an engineer was called in. He produced a formidable list of defects and recommendations which prompted a claim for negligence against A. The issue before the judge was whether the defects described in the engineer`s report existed at the date of A`s inspection and if so, whether they should have been discovered by A. After detailed examination of all the evidence the judge came to the conclusion that the case against A had not been substantiated; their liability had not