In March 1997, the claimants advanced money on the security of a residential property, following a mortgage valuation report from the defendants. Eight months later the purchaser sought a further advance from the claimants, and this was carried out by redeeming the original mortgage and creating a new one (based on a fresh valuation of the property from other valuers). The claimants then brought an action against the defendants, alleging that they had negligently overvalued the property. The Court of Appeal held that the defendants were not liable since, even assuming them to have been negligent, that negligence had not caused the claimants any loss. This was because the only transaction in respect of which the defendants owed the claimants a duty of care had come to an end without any loss being suffered.
