A Collection is a selection of features, articles, comments and opinions on any given theme or topic. It allows you to stay up‑to‑date with what interests you most.
Login here to access your saved articles and followed authors.
We have sent you an email so you can reset your password.
Sorry, we had a problem.
Tags related to this article
Published 23 August 2018
In the recent decision of Bank of Ireland v Watts Group PLC, Mr Justice Coulson considered the duty of care that a quantity surveyor (Watts) owed when providing a report to a bank (BOI) to be used as part of its lending decision. A developer had borrowed £1.4m from BOI to fund a development project, but subsequently entered liquidation and building work ceased. The property was sold, crystallising a loss of approximately £750,000. BOI brought a claim against the defendant surveyors, arguing that Watts' initial report was negligent and, but for that negligence, it would not have made the loan. Watts' defence was that BOI's decision to lend was itself negligent (as BOI lent more than its own lending guidelines permitted) and this was the cause of the loss.
In one of Mr Justice Coulson's last decisions before joining the Court of Appeal, he rejected the negligence claim brought by BOI.
Watts had been appointed to consider detailed costs estimates on the proposed development (the conversion of city centre flats into apartments) prepared by the developer, whose main shareholder was a key customer of BOI.
It was accepted by the parties that Watts owed a duty of care to take reasonable care in carrying out its obligations, either by way of an implied contractual term or pursuant to common law. The extent of that duty was the degree of skill and care of an ordinary monitoring surveyor of reasonable competence and experience. To assist the Court, the parties were permitted to adduce expert evidence.
Mr Justice Coulson was critical of BOI's expert witness and concluded that the expert:
Mr Justice Coulson noted that the expert had incurred fees of £24,000 preparing his first report, and similar costs had been incurred by BOI's solicitors also connected to this report. He rejected the expert's evidence and concluded that the issues raised against Watts were predicated on an unreasonable expectation on the part of BOI.
The Court held that Watts had not fallen below requisite standard a reasonable monitoring surveyor. This was on the basis that:
The Court also held that, even if BOI had been successful in proving that Watts had negligently fallen below the standard expected of a reasonably competent monitoring surveyor, the claim would have failed on causation and the irrecoverability of the loss. Even if the loss had been recoverable, the Court held that damages would have been reduced by 75% on grounds of contributory negligence.
The true cause of BOI's loss was its flawed decision to lend. However, based on South Australia Asset Management Corp v York Montague Ltd  A.C. 191 (SAAMCO) and Gabriel v Little  UKSC 21,  2 W.L.R. 1029, Watts had been appointed to provide information on costs estimates of the proposed development (which formed just part of the material that BOI relied upon). As such, Watts would only have liability in law for the consequences of the cost estimated being wrong (not for the financial consequences of BOI making the loan).
To add insult to injury, at the subsequent costs hearing, it was discovered that BOI had rejected settlement offers (including two made under Part 36 of the CPR). Mr Justice Coulson refused to award indemnity costs against BOI as the relevant offers did not give rise to an automatic entitlement. He ordered however that: (i) costs incurred as a result of BOI's expert's conduct be assessed on an indemnity basis and (ii) BOI make an interim payment on account of costs at 85% of Watts' approved costs budget.
Had BOI had obtained early expert evidence from an expert willing to consider whether they would have reached the same view had they been appointed by Watt, the claim may not have been pursued. This also raises a possible weakness in instructing a "professional expert" (i.e. someone who has not been in practice for a number of years) as they may not be fully up to date with current practice.
The most recent update on to the practice directions to the CPR has introduced a change in the rules as to concurrent evidence from experts which give trial judges more about the way in which expert evidence is heard. This could result in the courts exercising their powers to order parties to use single joint experts on more multi-track cases, particularly when there should not be a substantial range of expert opinion, such as quantum or the scope of a duty of care.
London - Walbrook
+44 (0)20 7894 6314
Nick Hillyard, Kai von Pahlen
Sophie Engel, Ben Daniels
Duncan Strachan, Francesca Muscutt, Emily Webber
Fiona Gill, Rebecca Austin
Mark Roach, Morgan Raines
Mark Roach, Chris Lewis
Mark Roach, Lauren Howe
Warren Kemp, Harriet Hawkins
Mark Roach, Harriet Hawkins
Mark Roach, James Davies