Smith v Eric S Bush (a firm)
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; 282(6330) 18 April 1987, 326-331(5)Publication details: 1987Subject(s): Summary: CA 13 March 1987. An appeal by surveyors against a county court decision awarding the present respondent, damages for professional negligence . The respondent bought a house in Norwich for 18,000. A mortgage of 3,500 was required, and she applied to the Abbey National Building Society who instructed the appellant firm to undertake a valuation for mortgage purposes. The resulting report valued the property at 16,500 and stated that no essential repairs were needed. The respondent went ahead with the purchase. Both the mortgage application form and the report contained disclaimers of liability . However, the surveyor who carried out the valuation overlooked a defect concerning the chimney breasts and 18 months later, one of the flues collapsed causing extensive damage. The county court found in the respondent`s favour; the appellants were liable for negligence and damages were awarded to the respondent. On appeal, the appellants did not dispute the existence of a duty of care , their f| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS37725 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 6447-1001 |
CA 13 March 1987. An appeal by surveyors against a county court decision awarding the present respondent, damages for professional negligence . The respondent bought a house in Norwich for 18,000. A mortgage of 3,500 was required, and she applied to the Abbey National Building Society who instructed the appellant firm to undertake a valuation for mortgage purposes. The resulting report valued the property at 16,500 and stated that no essential repairs were needed. The respondent went ahead with the purchase. Both the mortgage application form and the report contained disclaimers of liability . However, the surveyor who carried out the valuation overlooked a defect concerning the chimney breasts and 18 months later, one of the flues collapsed causing extensive damage. The county court found in the respondent`s favour; the appellants were liable for negligence and damages were awarded to the respondent. On appeal, the appellants did not dispute the existence of a duty of care , their f