This blog post explores why purchasers should take an assignment or insist on other protection before relying on reports provided to them by others.
If your answer to the question posed is ‘yes’, read on as this is exactly what happened in the case of BDW Trading Ltd (the “developer”) v Integral Geotechnique (Wales) Ltd (the “consultant”). In this case, the developer was left without a legal remedy when he suffered loss having relied on a negligently prepared report. Continue reading
The Supreme Court judgement in the case of Tiuta International v De Villiers Surveyors was handed down at the end of last month. The case involves surveyors valuing a property development, and a lender granting a loan facility to a developer while relying on the valuation.
The Supreme Court held that where a lender, Tiuta, advanced money on the basis of an initial valuation of property by surveyors De Villiers, then Tiuta refinanced the facility on the basis of a second negligent valuation by De Villiers, the liability of De Villiers was limited to the ‘top up’ element of any additional lending.
This ruling has come at a time when valuation negligence is a hot topic in the courts. There is an increased frequency of claims, often being tied to the financial instability of the late 2000s and its effect on commercial real estate values. In recent months, other important issues such as the width of the margin for error in valuation, have come under scrutiny.
For more information on this case please click on the link to the HSF insurance blog post, below: