Joe Edwards and Adam Smith-Roberts write for EG on a recent professional negligence decision in the Court of Appeal (Bratt v Jones)
min readIs a revolution coming for professional negligence claims against valuers?
Perhaps the thing lenders value above all else is the certainty of their security. But that certainty is usually founded on something that is a lot less certain: a valuation. Where the valuation is wrong and the lender seeks compensation from the valuer, the common response is that the valuation is within the “permissible bracket” of figures and, thus, not negligent. That has been the established pattern for almost 50 years. But is it about to change?
In its recent decision in Bratt v Jones [2025] EWCA Civ 562; [2025] EGLR 22, the Court of Appeal felt bound to stick to that traditional approach but it gave a strong indication that the underlying basis of the permissible bracket may be logically flawed and something that the Supreme Court may want to look at in an appropriate case. If the highest court takes up that opportunity, it could lead to a change in professional negligence claims against valuers as radical as the landmark South Australian Asset Management Company v York Montague [1997] AC 191.
Joe Edwards, Partner in our Real Estate Disputes team, and Adam Smith-Roberts, a Barrister at Gatehouse Chambers, jointly provide an analysis of the decision and its implications in the EG.
They cover off:
- What the court decided
- The “logical fallacy”
- Potential implications
Read the full piece in EG here (subscription required).
