What's the damage?
Series: Solicitors' Journal ; 145(3) 26 January 2001, 60(1)Publication details: 2001Subject(s): Summary: Considers the implications of "Howkins & Harrison v Tyler" (2000), where it was ruled that a claim from a firm of surveyors for a contribution from the defaulting borrowers fell outside the scope of the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 s1(1) as the 'damage' for which the settlement had been made concerned the surveyors' liability to the mortgage lender rather than the fact that the borrowers had defaulted. Consequently the building society gained a windfall whilst still being entitled able to recover the full outstanding balance from the borrower. Concludes that valuers should be less willing to reach a settlement and that those in a similar position should consider joining the lender in proceedings to make a subrogation claim.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | ABS63474 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 110795-1001 |
Considers the implications of "Howkins & Harrison v Tyler" (2000), where it was ruled that a claim from a firm of surveyors for a contribution from the defaulting borrowers fell outside the scope of the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 s1(1) as the 'damage' for which the settlement had been made concerned the surveyors' liability to the mortgage lender rather than the fact that the borrowers had defaulted. Consequently the building society gained a windfall whilst still being entitled able to recover the full outstanding balance from the borrower. Concludes that valuers should be less willing to reach a settlement and that those in a similar position should consider joining the lender in proceedings to make a subrogation claim.