Weatherburn v Joplings (A Firm) [2002] EWCA Civ 631 (25 April 2002)

Weatherburn v Joplings (A Firm) [2002] EWCA Civ 631 (25 April 2002)

Although some defendants breached duty by not advising on gypsum subsidence, no loss was attributable to that breach as there was no diminution in value at the relevant time; property blight was caused by unforeseeable events and not by negligent valuation.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 631
Parties
Claimant/applicant: Alexander Cameron Weatherburn; Defendant/respondent: Joplings (A Firm); Claimant/applicant: Claire Louise Yates; Defendant/respondent: Leeds & Holbeck Building Society; Claimant/applicant: Francis Joseph Brown
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 April 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Applications refused
Legal Topics
Valuation Negligence, Subsidence Liability, Duty of Care, Causation, Property Blight
Tort Professional Negligence Property Law Valuation Negligence Subsidence Liability Duty of Care Causation Property Blight

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alexander Cameron Weatherburn

Claimant/applicant

Joplings (A Firm)

Defendant/respondent

Claire Louise Yates

Claimant/applicant

Leeds & Holbeck Building Society

Defendant/respondent

Francis Joseph Brown

Claimant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether valuers breached duty by failing to advise on gypsum subsidence
  2. 2 Whether breach caused loss to claimants
  3. 3 Appropriate assessment of loss and valuation date

Ratio Decidendi

Although some defendants breached duty by not advising on gypsum subsidence, no loss was attributable to that breach as there was no diminution in value at the relevant time; property blight was caused by unforeseeable events and not by negligent valuation.

Court Disposition

Applications refused

Orders

  • Applicants' costs to have a detailed assessment