Skykomish Ltd v Gerald Eve LLP [2025] EWHC 1031 (Ch) (01 May 2025)

Skykomish Ltd v Gerald Eve LLP [2025] EWHC 1031 (Ch) (01 May 2025)

The Defendant breached its contractual and professional duty by failing to inspect the Property as required for a Red Book valuation, but the breach did not cause any loss because inspection would not have altered the valuation; the Claimant's reliance was insufficiently proven and the valuation methodology, though imperfect, was not negligent in the circumstances.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 1031 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Skykomish Ltd; Defendant: Gerald Eve LLP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 May 2025
Procedural Posture
Commercial Negligence Claim / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
RICS Red Book Compliance, Valuer's Duty of Care, Ground Rent Valuation, Expert Evidence, Reliance and Causation
Professional Negligence Commercial Property Valuation RICS Red Book Compliance Valuer's Duty of Care Ground Rent Valuation Expert Evidence Reliance and Causation

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

Skykomish Ltd

Claimant

Gerald Eve LLP

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Negligence Claim / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the Defendant negligent in providing the Leasehold valuation?
  2. 2 Did the Claimant rely on the Defendant's valuation when investing?
  3. 3 Did the Defendant breach RICS Red Book requirements by failing to inspect the Property?

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant breached its contractual and professional duty by failing to inspect the Property as required for a Red Book valuation, but the breach did not cause any loss because inspection would not have altered the valuation; the Claimant's reliance was insufficiently proven and the valuation methodology, though imperfect, was not negligent in the circumstances.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • No damages awarded
  • Claimant to pay Defendant's costs