Sunley v Sunley [2003] EWCA Civ 240 (10 February 2003)

Sunley v Sunley [2003] EWCA Civ 240 (10 February 2003)

The Recorder erred in ruling the RPS report inadmissible. The report was admissible as evidence of what would have been available to valuers and could be relied upon for causation and quantum. The absence of a Civil Evidence Act notice did not justify exclusion, and the issues raised by the defendants went to weight, not admissibility. The claimants should be permitted to rely on the report at trial, and the case should be retried.

Citation
[2003] EWCA Civ 240
Parties
Claimant/appellant: David Sunley; Claimant/appellant: Patricia Sunley; Defendant/respondent: Gowland White (Surveyors & Estate Agents) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 February 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From First Instance Decision on Admissibility of Evidence
Outcome
Appeal allowed; new trial ordered
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Evidence, Hearsay Evidence, Expert Evidence, Surveyors' Duty of Care, Valuation Negligence
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Admissibility of Evidence Hearsay Evidence Expert Evidence Surveyors' Duty of Care Valuation Negligence

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Sunley

Claimant/appellant

Patricia Sunley

Claimant/appellant

Gowland White (Surveyors & Estate Agents) Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From First Instance Decision on Admissibility of Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the draft RPS soil report was admissible in evidence
  2. 2 Whether the Recorder erred in excluding the report and dismissing the claim
  3. 3 Whether the claimants should be permitted to rely on the RPS report for causation and quantum

Ratio Decidendi

The Recorder erred in ruling the RPS report inadmissible. The report was admissible as evidence of what would have been available to valuers and could be relied upon for causation and quantum. The absence of a Civil Evidence Act notice did not justify exclusion, and the issues raised by the defendants went to weight, not admissibility. The claimants should be permitted to rely on the report at trial, and the case should be retried.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; new trial ordered

Orders

  • New trial directed before a circuit judge
  • Claimants' costs in the case