Smith v Peter North & Partners
Series: Property, Planning and Compensation Reports ; [2002] 1 P&CR 480-492(7)Publication details: 2002Subject(s): Summary: CA 8 October 2001. The appellants (S) had retained the respondent (P) to carry out a survey of a property which they were interested in buying. The report stated clearly that the property was in a poor state of repair. S purchased the property, allegedly in reliance on S's report, for £330 000. Subsequently it was discovered that repairs were needed at a cost of some £130 000. S issued proceedings for negligence. S sought damages in 2000 claiming that P had failed to advise them of the actual structural condition of the property. HH Judge Seymour made summary judgment that the appropriate measure of damages that could be awarded to S was the diminution in value and not the cost of repairs of £130 000. "Held" the appeal was dismissed.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS65658 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 118554-1001 |
CA 8 October 2001. The appellants (S) had retained the respondent (P) to carry out a survey of a property which they were interested in buying. The report stated clearly that the property was in a poor state of repair. S purchased the property, allegedly in reliance on S's report, for £330 000. Subsequently it was discovered that repairs were needed at a cost of some £130 000. S issued proceedings for negligence. S sought damages in 2000 claiming that P had failed to advise them of the actual structural condition of the property. HH Judge Seymour made summary judgment that the appropriate measure of damages that could be awarded to S was the diminution in value and not the cost of repairs of £130 000. "Held" the appeal was dismissed.