Casteran v Rural Valuations Pty Limited and O’Dea [2015] NSWSC 1337

Casteran v Rural Valuations Pty Limited and O’Dea [2015] NSWSC 1337

The valuation of $310,000.00 was substantially beyond the range which could properly have been reached by a competent valuer, given expert evidence that the property's value at November 2012 was $70,000.00 and the identified shortcomings in the defendants' methodology. The valuation was directed to the plaintiff's solicitor, the defendants knew or ought to have known it would be relied upon, and the plaintiff would not have advanced the funds but for that negligent valuation. The defendants were therefore liable for the plaintiff's loss of $176,386.51.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 September 2015
Procedural Posture
Claim for Damages for Professional Negligence and Misleading and Deceptive Conduct Arising From a Property Valuation / Final Hearing; Ex Tempore Revised Principal Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff against each of the first and second defendants in the sum of $176,386.51, with costs.
Legal Topics
["valuer's Duty of Care" 'mortgage Lending Reliance on Valuation' 'misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'damages for Negligent Valuation']
['negligence' 'consumer Law' 'professional Negligence'] ["valuer's Duty of Care" 'mortgage Lending Reliance on Valuation' 'misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'damages for Negligent Valuation']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Claim for Damages for Professional Negligence and Misleading and Deceptive Conduct Arising From a Property Valuation / Final Hearing; Ex Tempore Revised Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defendants owed and breached a duty of care in preparing and providing the valuation of the property.' 'Whether the valuation was outside the range which could properly have been arrived at by a competent valuer.' 'Whether the plaintiff relied on the valuation when advancing funds secured by mortgage.' 'Whether the valuation was misleading and deceptive within s 18 of Schedule 2 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth).' 'The amount of damages suffered by the plaintiff after default and sale of the mortgaged property.']

Ratio Decidendi

The valuation of $310,000.00 was substantially beyond the range which could properly have been reached by a competent valuer, given expert evidence that the property's value at November 2012 was $70,000.00 and the identified shortcomings in the defendants' methodology. The valuation was directed to the plaintiff's solicitor, the defendants knew or ought to have known it would be relied upon, and the plaintiff would not have advanced the funds but for that negligent valuation. The defendants were therefore liable for the plaintiff's loss of $176,386.51.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff against each of the first and second defendants in the sum of $176,386.51, with costs.

Orders

  • ['Judgment is entered for the plaintiff against each of the first and second defendants in the sum of $176,386.51.' "The first and second defendants are to pay the plaintiff's costs as agreed or assessed."]