When can a professional negligence claim against a property valuer succeed? That question has been clarified by the Court of Appeal in Bratt v Jones [2025] EWCA Civ 562. The case delivers essential guidance for anyone seeking to challenge a valuer’s work, particularly in complex property transactions where millions could be at stake. For claimants, the judgment underscores just how precise and evidentially robust a negligence claim must be to succeed.
The case highlights implications for professional negligence claims against valuers in which 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 by, for example, the valuer went wrong by using inappropriate comparables or by making false assumptions
Case background: High-value land, disputed valuation
The case centres around the Claimant, Mr Bratt, who had entered into an option agreement with Banner Homes for the sale of 10 acres of development land in Oxfordshire. Mr Bratt alleged that the 2013 valuation by Mr Jones negligently undervalued the land by millions of pounds.
Mr Jones, the defendant, was jointly appointed as an independent expert surveyor to determine the market value of the site. The developer’s purchase price was set at 90% of the market value (after certain deductions) and Mr Bratt believed that the true value of the land was in the region of £8 million compared to Mr Jones’ assessment at £4,075,000.
The margin of error
The Courts accept that a valuation is not an exact science, so competent professionals may arrive at slightly different figures and on that basis, accepts what is referred to as a permissible range, typically a margin of about 10% in normal cases, but it can be larger at 15% or more for unusual properties or where valuation involves more uncertainty.
The Judge considered that given the characteristics of the site and the differing expert opinions, a margin of error up to 15% was appropriate in this case to reflect the inherent uncertainty and judgment involved in valuing this land.
It is only if the valuation is outside the acceptable range that the court will then proceed to the next step.
The outcome: Within range, but close to the edge
The High Court found the correct value of the land to be £4,550,000, therefore within 14.15% of the correct value, and therefore the claim failed.
Notable was the fact that, had the valuation been outside of the 15% tolerance, the Judge would have gone on to examine how the valuation was conducted, to decide if the valuer failed to exercise the skill and care expected of a reasonably competent professional.
This is the standard test for professional negligence, often called the Bolam test, originally from medical negligence law.
Beyond numbers: The Bolam Test
In practical terms, thereafter there must be a demonstrable flaw in the valuer’s approach or reasoning that breaches the professional standard. The claimant must identify specific errors or unreasonable aspects of the valuer’s methodology; things no reasonably careful valuer would have done, that led to the abnormal valuation.
Errors Noted but Claim Fails
The Judge did comment on certain criticisms of Mr Jones’ work in finding he had made an error in the treatment of developmental improvements in his residual valuation. If the overall valuation had fallen outside the permissible range, that error would have been evidence of negligence causing an estimated £500,000 loss in value.
The appeal: Legal standards reaffirmed by the Court
Mr Bratt appealed to the Court of Appeal who fully upheld the High Court’s approach and findings, and in doing so reaffirmed the legal test for negligence in valuation cases.
This case is a reminder that a professional negligence claim against a property valuer is not just about disagreeing with a valuation.
Claimants must show that the valuation significantly strayed beyond the acceptable margin of error and that the professional failed to meet the required standard of care. As Bratt v Jones confirms, expert evidence, valuation methodology, and the nuanced application of legal principles all play a critical role in determining the outcome.
If you require legal support with a professional negligence claim, our team can provide comprehensive advice tailored to your specific situation.
Key Contact
Nicola Davies
Dispute Resolution Solicitor
Nicola is a Solicitor in our Dispute Resolution team.
