Barclays Bank Plc v TBS & V Ltd

Barclays Bank Plc v TBS & V Ltd

The defendant's valuation of £350,000 was within the permissible margin of error (15%) of the court's determined value (£330,000) for the property as at the valuation date. The valuation was not negligent, as it reflected a reasonable application of the EBITDA/multiplier approach, properly considered the role of a Reasonably Efficient Operator, and took into account relevant factors such as lease length, additional floor space, and market conditions. The claimant's criticisms of methodology and inclusion of additional floor space did not render the result negligent. As the valuation was not negligent, the claim fails.

Parties
Claimant: Barclays Bank PLC; Defendant: TBS & V Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Valuer's Negligence, Margin of Error in Valuation, Duty of Care, Implied Terms in Loan Agreements, Contributory Negligence
Professional Negligence Banking Law Valuer's Negligence Margin of Error in Valuation Duty of Care Implied Terms in Loan Agreements Contributory 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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Barclays Bank PLC

Claimant

TBS & V Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the defendant's valuation of the property negligent?
  2. 2 Did the valuation fall outside the permissible margin of error for a competent valuer?
  3. 3 Was there reliance on the valuation by the claimant?

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant's valuation of £350,000 was within the permissible margin of error (15%) of the court's determined value (£330,000) for the property as at the valuation date. The valuation was not negligent, as it reflected a reasonable application of the EBITDA/multiplier approach, properly considered the role of a Reasonably Efficient Operator, and took into account relevant factors such as lease length, additional floor space, and market conditions. The claimant's criticisms of methodology and inclusion of additional floor space did not render the result negligent. As the valuation was not negligent, the claim fails.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed