4660 Search results found

Neutral Citation Number: [2014] EWHC 1104 (Ch)Case No: 2MA30075IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICECHANCERY DIVISIONMANCHESTER DISTRICT REGISTRY Manchester Civil Justice Centre,1 Bridge Street West, Manchester M60 9DJ Date: 10 April 2014 Before:HIS HONOUR JUDGE STEPHEN DAVIESSITTING AS A JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – -Between : E.SURV LIMITEDClaimant – and –   GOLDSMITH WILLIAMS SOLICITORS Defendant – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Shail Patel (instructed by DWF LLP, Solicitors Manchester) for the Claimant Paul Mitchell (instructed by Reynolds Porter Chamberlain LLP, Solicitors, London) for the Defendant Hearing dates: 5, 14 March 2014- – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – -JUDGMENTHis Honour Judge Stephen Davies: 1. In this case the claimant surveyors E.Surv Limited (“the surveyors”), seek contribution under the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 from the defendant solicitors Goldsmith Williams (“the solicitors”), in respect of monies paid to a mortgage lending company, The Mortgage Business (“the lender”), in settlement of its claim for damages for negligent over-valuation of a property known as Quarnford Lodge, near Buxton (“the property”).  2. The surveyors’ case is that the solicitors failed, in breach of the express and implied terms of its contract with the lender, to advise the lender that the would-be borrower, a Mr David Gayler (“the borrower”), had been registered as proprietor of the property for less than 6 months and that the price he had paid for it as disclosed on the office copy entries, £390,000, was significantly less than the surveyors’ valuation as stated in the mortgage offer, £725,000.  The surveyors’ case is that had the solicitors done so then the lender would have requested the surveyors to reconsider their valuation in the light of that information, that at that point the surveyors would have realised that the borrower had misinformed them about the purchase price, and would have: (a) produced a significantly reduced valuation; and/or (b) informed the lenders about this misinformation, with the result in either case being that the lender would have declined to lend to the borrower and, thus, avoided the loss which it in fact incurred.