Valuation negligence (Bratt v Jones)

Bratt v Jones [2025] EWCA Civ 562

What are the practical implications of this case?

This case has significant implications for professional negligence claims against valuers. It confirms that claimants must establish both that the valuation was outside the permissible margin of error and that the valuer failed to act with reasonable care and skill. The judgment reinforces the importance of expert evidence in determining the appropriate bracket and assessing valuation methodology. Legal practitioners advising clients in valuation disputes should therefore ensure that both elements of the test are addressed. The reaffirmation of the Bolam test means that it is not enough to show that the valuation was outside the bracket. The claimant must also show where the valuer went wrong, such as by using inappropriate comparables or by making false assumptions.

That said, the Court of Appeal expressed doubt on the ‘rule’ in Merivale Moore plc v Strutt & Parker [2000] PNLR 498 that a valuer is only liable if the valuation falls outside the relevant bracket. Drawing on dicta by Lord Hoffmann in Lion Nathan Ltd v CC Bottlers Ltd [1996] 1 WLR 1438, it said that the rule was open for reconsideration by the Supreme Court.

What was the background?

Mr Bratt entered into an option agreement with Banner Homes for the sale of development land. The agreement stipulated that the price would be 90% of the market value as determined by an independent valuer. Mr Jones, the appointed valuer, assessed the land at £4,075,000. Mr Bratt contended that the true value was £7,800,000 and alleged negligence and breach of contract. The dispute centred on whether the valuation fell outside the acceptable bracket and whether the valuer had acted negligently. The High Court found the correct value to be £4,550,000 and determined a permissible margin of 10–15%. As the valuation was within 14.15% of the correct value, the claim failed. Mr Bratt appealed on four grounds, including the legal test for liability and the treatment of enhancements and comparables.

What did the court decide?

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal. It held that a valuation outside the bracket does not automatically establish negligence; the claimant must also prove a breach of duty under the Bolam test. The court confirmed that determining the bracket is a factual question, albeit informed by the expert evidence. It upheld the approach of the trial judge (Mark Cawson KC, sitting as a judge of the High Court) to determining the ‘correct’ valuation, finding the adjustments reasonable and supported by evidence. The court also rejected the argument that additional comparables should have been considered, noting the lack of expert analysis on those properties. The decision reinforces the dual requirement for establishing negligence and supports the continued application of the bracket concept in valuation cases. As noted above, the court acknowledged criticisms of the pre-condition approach but stated that only the Supreme Court could overturn it.

Case details

• Court: Court of Appeal, Civil Division
• Judges: Sir Geoffrey Vos, Master Of The Rolls, Lord Justice Jonathan Baker and Lord Justice Snowden
• Date of judgment: 2 May 2025

Article by Tom Bell and Priya Gopal, originally published by LexisNexis here.