Date: 2 May 2025
Judges: Sir Geoffrey Vos, Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Jonathan Baker and Lord Justice Snowden
Key Words:
Professional negligence, Valuer liability, Option agreement, Margin of error / Bracket, Comparable valuation, Residual valuation, Abnormals and enhancements, Bolam test, Market value determination, Development land, Duty of care, Judicial review of expert valuation, Standard of care, Permissible range, Legal burden vs evidential burden, Comparables analysis, Misvaluation consequences, Expert evidence, Appeal grounds (bracket, methodology, valuation, comparables).
Summary
The appeal concerned a professional negligence claim against valuer Mr Nigel Lawson Jones, appointed under an option agreement between Mr Rowlan Phillip Bratt and Banner Homes [1]. Mr Bratt contended that a valuation outside the permissible bracket reversed the burden of proof [1, 3, 4].
HHJ Cawson KC dismissed the claim despite acknowledging an error in Mr Jones’s residual valuation, as the £4,075,000 figure fell within 14.15% of the court’s determined “correct” value of £4,746,860, inside the 10–15% bracket [2, 16, 22-25, 30].
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on all four grounds [5, 90], holding that negligence must be proven by the claimant according to Bolam [5, 46, 57], that bracket size is a fact question [41, 62-65], and that the judge’s findings on enhancements, abnormals, and comparables were sound [53-54, 56-57].
Case Law/ Authorities:
Merivale Moore plc v Strutt & Parker [2000] PNLR 498
Capita Alternative Fund Services (Guernsey) v Drivers Jonas [2011] EWHC 2336 (Comm)
Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582
K/S Lincoln v CB Richard Ellis [2010] PNLR 31
Barclays Bank plc v TBS & V Limited [2016] EWHC 2948 (QB)
Dunfermline BS v CBRE Limited [2018] PNLR 13
Singer & Friedlander v John D Wood & Co [1977] 2 EGLR 84
South Australia Asset Management Corp v York Montague Ltd (SAAMCO) [1997] AC 191
Legal & General Mortgage Services v HPC Professional Services [1997] PNLR 567
Craneheath Securities v York Montague [1996] 1 EGLR 130
Titan Europe 2006-3 plc v Colliers International UK plc [2015] EWCA Civ 1083; [2016] PNLR 7
Goldstein v Levy Gee [2003] PNLR 35
Lion Nathan Ltd v CC Bottlers Ltd [1996] 1 WLR 1438
Manchester Building Society v Grant Thornton UK LLP [2021] UKSC 21; [2022] AC 783
Dennard v PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP [2010] EWHC 812 (Ch)
Axa Equity and Law Home Loans Ltd v Goldsack & Freeman [1994] 1 EGLR 175
BNP Mortgages v Barton Cook and Sams [1996] 1 EGLR 239
Corisand v Druce & Co [1978] 2 EGLR 86
Mount Banking Corporation Ltd v Cooper & Co [1992] 2 EGLR 142
Arab Bank Plc v John D Wood Commercial Ltd [1998] EGCS 34
Zubaida v Hargreaves [1995] 1 EGLR 127
Nykredit Mortgage Bank Plc v Edward Erdman Group Ltd (No. 2) [1996] 1 EGLR 123
South Australian Asset Management Corp v. York Montague [1997] AC 191 (SAAMCO)
Jayasena v R [1970] AC 618
Background
Mr Bratt owned land subject to a 2002 option agreement with Banner Homes [6-7]. The price was set at 90% of market value post-planning permission [7]. After permission for 82 dwellings was granted (March 2012), Banner served notice (June 2013), and Mr Jones was appointed as valuer [9-10].
Competing valuations ranged from £8M (Bratt) to £1.766M (Banner) [10]. Mr Jones eventually valued the site at £4,075,000 in April 2016 [11, 19], adjusting for abnormals (£795,000) but not enhancements at the Bloxham Road comparable [13-14]. For the Site, both abnormals and enhancements (£1.87M) were deducted [15-16, 17]. A flawed residual valuation (double-counted enhancements) was later corrected to £4.56M–£4.65M [18], but Mr Jones still preferred his comparables analysis [19]. Banner paid £3.53M (90% of £4.075M) [20]. Mr Bratt sued for negligence [21].
Key Themes:
Professional Negligence of Valuers: Central to the case [1, 19-22, 26].
The "Bracket": Permissible range in which competent valuations can differ [23, 27, 29-30, 37-49, 58-70, 81].
The Bolam Test: Negligence requires deviation from respectable professional practice [25, 26, 41-42, 44-46].
Bracket & Bolam Relationship: Valuation outside the bracket does not shift legal burden [1, 3-6, 33-35, 41].
Determination of "Correct" Value: Based on expert evidence [23, 27-30].
Comparable Transactions: Valuation primarily based on Bloxham Road [9-19, 28-29, 35-37].
Residual Valuation: Used as a check [10-11, 15-19, 28-29, 66-67].
Abnormals & Enhancements: Adjustments applied inconsistently challenged [13-18, 27-29, 31-33, 35-36, 45-54, 71-82].
Legal Issues and Analysis
Per Capita [23], valuation is inherently subjective, thus the concept of a bracket applies. A figure outside the bracket is necessary but insufficient for liability; Bolam negligence must also be shown [23, 26-27, 43, 48-49, 57]. Bracket size is fact-specific and may exceed 15% in complex or exceptional cases [23, 62-65].
The judge used the approach in Barclays v TBS [27-28], determining a correct value, setting the bracket (10–15%), then checking whether the valuer’s figure fell within it. Only if it did not would Bolam analysis follow [30].
Ground 1: The Legal Test for Liability – Mr Bratt argued a valuation outside the bracket should shift the burden [33]. He relied on Merivale Moore, Capita, and Singer & Friedlander [33, 37-40]. However, the Court held that falling outside the bracket is not enough—claimants must also prove Bolam negligence [43-44, 46]. Merivale Moore remains binding authority requiring both limbs [35-36, 48-49, 57]. While the Court acknowledged critiques of this “pre-condition” model (SAAMCO, Lion Nathan) [38, 53-55], it deferred full reconsideration to the Supreme Court [50].
Ground 2: Determination of the Bracket – Mr Bratt argued bracket size is a legal question [27, 41], citing Titan and K/S Lincoln [27, 34, 41, 59]. The Court disagreed: Singer & Friedlander showed bracket size stems from expert evidence and case facts [62-63], as confirmed by Merivale Moore [63-65]. The judge accepted Mr Buckingham’s 15% margin based on the site’s complexity and judgment calls over abnormals [29, 44-46, 67-69]. Mr Bratt’s expert gave no opposing evidence [44-45]. Ground 2 failed [68-70].
Ground 3: Enhancements and Abnormals – Mr Jones applied abnormals to Bloxham Road but not enhancements [13-14, 48-49]. For the Site, he deducted both [15-16]. Mr Bratt argued this created an inconsistency [49]. The judge reduced enhancement deductions by 50% instead of the full amount [74-75], supported by both experts [75-78]. The Court upheld this [78].
Mr Bratt also argued the abnormals figure for Bloxham (£795k) excluded profit while the Site’s did not (£818k/£729k) [17-18, 53-54, 79-80]. The Court found no pleaded claim or conclusive evidence on the profit issue [80-81], and that even if accepted, it wouldn’t move the figure outside the bracket [81-82]. Ground 3 dismissed [82].
Ground 4: The Other Possible Comparables – Mr Bratt argued Aynho and Milton Road should have been included in the court’s “correct” value calculation [27-28, 36-37, 54]. The judge considered Bloxham the best (if not only) close comparable [84]. Experts provided no analysis adjusting these comparables for relevant differences [84-85, 87]. The Court upheld the judge’s decision not to independently conduct such a valuation without evidential support [88-89]. Ground 4 failed.
Conclusion
The Court of Appeal dismissed all four grounds [90], affirming that both a valuation outside the acceptable bracket and a breach of Bolam duty must be shown to establish liability [48-49, 57]. Bracket size is a factual question, and the judge's assessment was well supported [62-64, 69, 78-80, 88]. Since Mr Jones’s figure fell within the permissible range, the claim failed [30-31, 90].
Key Takeaway:
Reaffirming Merivale Moore, the court held that a professional negligence claim against a valuer based on the figure alone requires: (1) a valuation outside the permissible bracket, and (2) proof of Bolam-standard negligence [5, 35-36, 43-45, 48-49, 57]. Bracket size is a question of fact, not law [62-63, 69].
Parting Thoughts
And so, like a Bentley nudging a hedge, we arrive at the elegant denouement of Bratt v Jones. The Court of Appeal has again clarified that valuation is neither sorcery nor simple maths. You can’t just shout, “Outside the bracket!” and expect an instant finding of negligence.
Mr Bratt’s case fell into the familiar trap of equating a numerical deviation with incompetence. But as the Court repeated, valuation is a nuanced, subjective craft—more jazz than geometry. A figure beyond the bracket may be questionable, but unless it’s paired with methodical blunder breaching Bolam, it doesn’t establish negligence.
The Court firmly dismissed the idea that breaching the bracket shifts any legal burden. The bracket isn’t sacred geometry—it’s a factual construct derived from comparables, abnormals, and, if one insists, residuals. It flags a possible error, not a presumption of guilt.
No quiet revolution here: the Merivale Moore two-step endures. Claimants must prove both that the valuation falls outside the permissible range and that the valuer breached Bolam-compliant standards. It’s a high bar—particularly galling if your land’s been undersold—but it reflects the reality that reasonable experts often disagree.
Valuers: unless your methodology would get you barred from the RICS buffet, you’re probably fine. Claimants: bring evidence, not outrage—and maybe a spare bracket. You’ll need it.
#BrattvJones #EWCA #ProfessionalNegligence #ValuerLiability #PropertyValuation #ValuationBracket #MarginOfError #BolamTest #RealEstateLaw #DevelopmentLand #DDAlegal #LegalUpdate #ConstructionLaw #LegalJudgment
Nigel Davies BSc(Hons) (Q.Surv), PGCert.Psych, GDipLaw, PGDipLP, DipArb, MSc (Built Environment), LLM (Construction Law & Practice), MSc (Mechanical & Electrical), MSc (Psychology), FRICS, FCIOB, FCInstCES, FCIArb, CArb, GMBPsS, Panel Registered Adjudicator, Mediator, Mediation Advocate, Chartered Builder & Chartered Construction Manager, Chartered Surveyor & Civil Engineering Surveyor, Chartered Arbitrator, Author, and Solicitor-Advocate
Adjudicator Assessor and Re-Assessor for the ICE and the CIArb
Arbitrator Assessor for the CIArb
ICE DRC Member
ICE DRC CPD Committee Chairman
Adjudicator Exam Question Setter for the ICE
CIArb Adjudication Panel Member since 2006
CIArb Arbitration Panel Member since 2006
CIC Adjudication Panel Member since 2010
Law Society Panel Arbitrator
RIBA Adjudication Panel Member since 2018
RICS Adjudication Panel Member since 2006
TECSA Adjudication Panel Member since 2012
FIDIC Adjudication Panel Member since 2021
ICE Adjudication Panel Member since 2021
RICS Dispute Board Registered since 2013
The information & opinions expressed in this article are not necessarily comprehensive, nor do they represent the trenchant view of the author; in any event, this article does not purport to offer professional advice. This article has been prepared as a summary and is intended for general guidance only. In the case of a specific problem, it is recommended that professional advice be sought.