Cases - Ball v Banner; Neill Clerk v Healey & Baker
Record details
- Name
- Ball v Banner; Neill Clerk v Healey & Baker
- Date
- [2000]; [2000]
- Citation
- Lloyd's Rep PN 569; EGCS 36, CA
- Legislation
- Keywords
- Negligence in valuations and surveys
- Summary
-
Solicitors who launched an Enterprise Zone Property Unit Trust were held liable to investors, on the grounds that the prospectus that they had drafted to encourage investment contained misleading information. The solicitors then sought a contribution from valuers who had provided other, also misleading, information for the prospectus; this was on the basis the valuers would, if sued, also have been liable to the investors. However, by virtue of the principle laid down by the House of Lords in South Australia Asset Management Corp v York Montague Ltd (1996), the valuers' liability in these circumstances would have been 'capped' at the level of their overvaluation. It was held that the solicitors and valuers were equally to blame, and that the solicitors were therefore entitled to recover a contribution equivalent to one-half of the damages for which they were liable. It was further held, following the reasoning of the House of Lords in Platform Home Loans Ltd v Oyston Shipways Ltd (1999), that this meant one-half of the total damages (provided that the resulting figure was within the 'cap'), and not one-half of the lower, 'capped' amount.