Image from Google Jackets

Watts and another v Morrow

Language: English Series: Construction Industry Law Letter ; (1991) CILL 640-642(3)Publication details: 1991Subject(s): Summary: ORC 5 November 1990 Action by purchasers (W) of a farmhouse claiming damages against a surveyor (M) for negligence . M carried out a structural survey on the property, mentioning some defects and making recommendations for repair . On moving in, W discovered defects in the house and that the roof was due for a major overhaul. W criticised M`s report on the grounds that he had pointed out a defect and then wrongly reassured W that it could be dealt with as part of ordinary on-going maintenance and repair. In fact, it was necessary to carry out immediate and heavy expenditure on the property. ORC held that 1) the surveyor was negligent. Use of a dictating machine during the survey, which was held to be inconsistent with the RICS practice note on structural surveys, led to a report strong on immediate detail, but weak on reflective report; 2) damages should be assessed on the basis of cost of repairs for reasons given in Syrett v Carr and Neave (1990) and 3) general damages should be re
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS44162 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 45597-1001

ORC 5 November 1990 Action by purchasers (W) of a farmhouse claiming damages against a surveyor (M) for negligence . M carried out a structural survey on the property, mentioning some defects and making recommendations for repair . On moving in, W discovered defects in the house and that the roof was due for a major overhaul. W criticised M`s report on the grounds that he had pointed out a defect and then wrongly reassured W that it could be dealt with as part of ordinary on-going maintenance and repair. In fact, it was necessary to carry out immediate and heavy expenditure on the property. ORC held that 1) the surveyor was negligent. Use of a dictating machine during the survey, which was held to be inconsistent with the RICS practice note on structural surveys, led to a report strong on immediate detail, but weak on reflective report; 2) damages should be assessed on the basis of cost of repairs for reasons given in Syrett v Carr and Neave (1990) and 3) general damages should be re