Rowland Phillip Bratt v Nigel Lawson Jones

Rowland Phillip Bratt v Nigel Lawson Jones

A claimant must prove both that the valuation falls outside the acceptable bracket and that the valuer breached professional standards; the burden of proof does not shift to the valuer merely because the valuation is outside the bracket. The determination of the margin of error is a question of fact based on expert evidence. The judge's approach to enhancements, abnormals, and comparables was supported by evidence and not erroneous.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Rowland Phillip Bratt; Defendant/respondent: Nigel Lawson Jones
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 July 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Valuer's Liability, Margin of Error in Valuation, Bolam Test, Burden of Proof, Expert Evidence, Damages Calculation
Professional Negligence Contract Law Valuer's Liability Margin of Error in Valuation Bolam Test Burden of Proof Expert Evidence Damages Calculation

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 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rowland Phillip Bratt

Claimant/appellant

Nigel Lawson Jones

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a valuer's liability is determined solely by the valuation falling outside the permissible margin or bracket
  2. 2 Whether the burden of proof shifts to the valuer if the valuation is outside the bracket
  3. 3 Appropriate determination of the margin of error for development land valuation

Ratio Decidendi

A claimant must prove both that the valuation falls outside the acceptable bracket and that the valuer breached professional standards; the burden of proof does not shift to the valuer merely because the valuation is outside the bracket. The determination of the margin of error is a question of fact based on expert evidence. The judge's approach to enhancements, abnormals, and comparables was supported by evidence and not erroneous.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed