Home Page > Monthly Update > Mortgages.

Home Page
Editorial Team

Boundaries and adverse possession.
Business lease renewal.
Co-ownership and estoppel.
Landlord and tenant (general).
Long leases.
Mobile homes.
Nuisance and trespass.
Property litigation and ADR.
Property transactions.
Public access to land.
Residential tenancies.
Restrictive covenants.

Current page


The editor of this section of the site is Nigel Clayton of Kings Chambers, Leeds and Manchester. Nigel also maintains the specialist website dealing with mortgages at www.legalmortgage.co.uk

There are three cases this month:
  • The Supreme Court ruled on the extent of a valuer’s liability arising from a negligent valuation
  • The legal principles relating to negligent valuation of non-standard leasehold commercial premises.
  • Rectification of Land Registry entries relating to a Charge.

Negligent valuation


Tiuta International Ltd v De Villiers Surveyors Ltd
[2017] UKSC 77


A mortgage valuer is only liable for the consequences of his negligent valuation. Where the same valuer had been negligent in respect of a second valuation (but not the first), in reliance upon which a lender advanced further funds which (a) discharged the first advance, and (b) provided new money, the valuer was only liable for the loss of the new money.


In April 2011, T provided a first short-term loan facility of £2,475,000 on the security of a legal charge. The facility was required to fund a residential development and was made in reliance upon a valuation from V.

In December 2011, T provided a second loan facility of £3,088,252. Part of the second loan was used to repay the 1st loan facility and the balance was released to the borrower. The second loan facility was made in reliance upon a further valuation from V.

The borrower defaulted in repayment leaving a projected shortfall. At that stage, the balance outstanding on the facility was £2,084,000 with likely recoveries valued at £2,014,000. T sued V alleging negligence in relation to its second valuation. T claimed that had the valuation not been negligent it would not have entered into the second loan facility and would not have suffered the losses it now faced. There was no allegation that the first valuation had been negligent.

V defended the claim, and alleged that since T had already advanced £2,475,000 in reliance upon the first valuation (which had not been n ... THIS IS AN EXTRACT OF THE FULL TEXT. TO GET THE FULL TEXT, SEE BELOW

Existing members, to login click => here
If you have found this page useful, you may be interested in the following:

Free Summaries £nil
Full Membership From £207 + VAT (1 year)