Bratt v Jones: The Bracket Principle and Bolam Duty in Valuation Negligence

Introduction

Bratt v Jones [2025] EWCA Civ 562 is a landmark decision of the England and Wales Court of Appeal that clarifies two fundamental points in professional negligence claims against valuers. First, it affirms that a valuation falling outside the “bracket” within which competent valuers might reasonably differ is a necessary—but not sufficient—condition for liability. Second, it confirms that the claimant always bears the legal burden of proving negligence in accordance with Bolam principles; the defendant valuer never assumes a reverse legal burden simply because the valuation lies outside the acceptable margin. Mr Bratt, a landowner, appealed the dismissal of his claim against Mr Jones, an expert valuer who under-valued his development site for an option agreement. The Court of Appeal was asked to decide whether the judge below had applied the correct legal tests in: (a) defining and applying the permissible valuation bracket, and (b) allocating the burden of proof on negligence.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal dismissed Mr Bratt’s appeal on all four grounds. The key holdings were:

A valuation outside the court-determined bracket is only an indication that negligence may have occurred; it does not itself establish liability unless the claimant also proves a breach of the valuer’s professional duty under Bolam.
The bracket (permissible margin of error) is a question of fact for the trial judge, informed by expert evidence and the circumstances of the specific valuation exercise.
The judge correctly determined the bracket as ±10–15% for a one-off development plot with unique features and found Mr Jones’s valuation fell within that margin (only 14.15% below the “correct” value).
The judge’s adjustments for “enhancements” and “abnormals” in his own valuation were supported by expert evidence and were not open to challenge on appeal.
No basis existed for the judge to undertake his own comparable-plot valuations when the parties’ experts had not done so.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

Merivale Moore plc v. Strutt & Parker [2000] PNLR 498 established that a claimant must first show a valuation figure falls outside the permissible bracket before the court will inquire into the valuer’s professional competence under the Bolam test.
Capita Alternative Fund Services v. Drivers Jonas [2011] EWHC 2336 summarized the two-stage approach: (i) is the valuation outside the bracket? (ii) if so, has the valuer breached the professional standard?
K/S Lincoln v. CB Richard Ellis [2010] PNLR 31 provided guidance on categorizing margins of error (±5%, ±10%, ±15% etc.), but did not transform the bracket into a pure question of law.
Singer & Friedlander v. John D Wood & Co [1977] 2 EGLR 84 recognized valuation as “an art not a science,” and recited surveyors’ evidence that ±10% is typical, rising to ±15% in exceptional cases.
South Australian Asset Management Corp v. York Montague [1997] AC 191 (SAAMCO) and Lion Nathan Ltd v. CC Bottlers Ltd [1996] 1 WLR 1438 (Lion Nathan) influenced Lord Hoffmann’s reasoning on separating negligence from loss and rejecting any pre-condition that the range of non-negligent figures defines the standard of care.

2. Legal Reasoning

The Court distilled two overarching principles:

Liability for valuation negligence requires both:
- a valuation figure that falls outside the bracket of values within which a reasonably competent valuer could have arrived; and
- a breach of professional standards judged by reference to a “respectable body of opinion” in the valuation profession (the Bolam test).
The court determines the correct valuation and the size of the permissible bracket as questions of fact, weighing the evidence and circumstances of the case—including expert testimony on comparables, residuals, market conditions and the nature of the property.

Applying those principles, the trial judge’s valuation of £4,746,860 (adjusted from Bloxham Road comparables and cross-checked by residual methods) with a ±10–15% bracket was upheld. Mr Jones’s valuation of £4,075,000 fell within that bracket (14.15% difference), and thus could not sustain liability in negligence.

3. Impact

Bratt v Jones reaffirms and refines the law on valuation negligence:

It cements the two-stage test as: (i) bracket assessment; (ii) Bolam duty scrutiny—both must be met for liability.
It dispels uncertainty about shifts in the legal burden: the claimant always bears the burden of proving negligence in the valuation methodology.
It confirms that bracket determination is fact-sensitive, not a uniform legal rule divorced from expert evidence and case-specific factors.
Future claimants and valuers will have clear guidance that being outside a bracket is necessary but not determinative of negligence, and that courts will assess brackets flexibly based on property type, data availability and expert input.

Complex Concepts Simplified

The Bracket (Permissible Margin): The range of values (expressed as a percentage above and below a court-determined “correct” valuation) within which competent valuers might reasonably differ without being negligent.
Bolam Test: Originating in medical professional negligence cases, this test asks whether the valuer’s methodology aligns with practices accepted by a respectable body of professional opinion.
Residual Valuation: A method that estimates land value by deducting development costs (construction, finance, profit margins) from projected sale proceeds.
Comparables Method: A market approach comparing the subject site to recent, similar land transactions and adjusting for differences (location, abnormals, enhancements).
Abnormals vs. Enhancements: “Abnormals” are unusual site-preparation costs. “Enhancements” are developer-driven quality or design improvements beyond standard specifications.

Conclusion

Bratt v Jones is a definitive statement on valuation professional negligence. Its key takeaways are:

A valuation outside the permissible bracket is a necessary indication of possible negligence but is not conclusive—proof of a Bolam breach remains essential.
The claimant always bears the legal burden of proving negligence in the valuation process; there is no shift of the legal burden because the figure lies outside the bracket.
Determining the bracket is a fact-dependent exercise, informed by expert evidence and the unique circumstances of each valuation assignment.
Court of Appeal guidance in this judgment will influence future valuation disputes, offering clarity and reinforcing standards of professional diligence in the valuation field.