Introduction

The case of Large v Hart & Anor ([2021] EWCA Civ 24) addresses critical issues surrounding negligence in surveying services, particularly focusing on the appropriate measure of loss in such cases. The appellant, Mr. Large, a surveyor, was found liable for significant financial damages incurred by the respondents, the Harts, following their purchase of a property that was later deemed to require extensive reconstruction due to poor rebuilding works.

The central issue revolves around whether the lower court correctly assessed the diminution in value and whether the measure of loss applied aligns with established legal principles governing negligent surveyor cases.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's decision, affirming that Mr. Large was negligent in his duties as a surveyor. The negligence pertained to his failure to identify and report significant defects in the property, particularly the inadequate damp-proofing and the absence of a Professional Consultancy Certificate (PCC). The court concluded that the appropriate measure of loss was the diminution in value of the property, calculated based on the difference between its condition as reported by Mr. Large and its actual deteriorated state.

The total damages were assessed at £389,000, considering the diminution in value, contributions from other defendants, and general damages for inconvenience and distress.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references foundational cases in the realm of negligent surveying:

• Philips v Ward [1956] 1 WLR 471: Established that the proper measure of damages is the diminution in value, not the cost of repairs.
• Perry v Sidney Philips & Son [1982] 1 WLR 1297: Reinforced the principle that damages should reflect the difference between the purchase price and the property's true value as it should have been described.
• Watts v Morrow [1991] 1 WLR 1421: Highlighted the limitations of awarding damages solely based on the difference in property value, especially when there's no warranty by the surveyor.
• South Australia Asset Management Corporation v York Montague Limited [1997] AC 191 (SAAMCO): Differentiated between providing information and advice, influencing the extent of liability.
• Hughes-Holland v BPE Solicitors [2017] UK SC 21; [2018] AC 599: Further clarified the distinction between advice and information in professional negligence.
• Thompson v Christie Manson and Woods Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 555: Emphasized that surveyors are not liable for defects they fail to spot without negligence.
• Asset Co PLC v Grant Thornton UK LLP [2020] EWCA Civ 1151: Reiterated the SAAMCO principle as a tool for determining recoverable losses.

Legal Reasoning

The court delved into whether Mr. Large's negligence directly led to the Harts' financial losses. It was determined that Mr. Large failed to identify signs of poor workmanship and did not recommend obtaining a PCC, which would have protected the Harts against undisclosed defects. The judge concluded that these failures were so fundamental that, had proper advice been given, the Harts would not have proceeded with the purchase.

The court emphasized that this case was atypical compared to standard negligent surveyor cases due to the critical importance of the PCC and the extensive rebuilding works on the property.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the duty of care owed by surveyors to their clients, particularly in complex cases involving extensive property modifications. It underscores the necessity for surveyors to not only report on visible defects but also to provide comprehensive advice on potential risks and necessary precautions, such as obtaining a PCC.

Future cases will likely reference this decision when determining the extent of a surveyor's liability and the appropriate measure of loss, especially in scenarios involving significant property modifications and the associated risks.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Measure of Loss: Diminution in Value

Diminution in value refers to the reduction in a property's market value due to defects that were not identified or reported by the surveyor. It represents the difference between the property's value as it was sold and its value post-defect discovery.

Professional Consultancy Certificate (PCC)

A Professional Consultancy Certificate (PCC) is a document that certifies the quality and compliance of rebuilding or construction works carried out under professional supervision. It serves as an assurance to buyers regarding the structural integrity and adherence to building standards.

Negligence in Surveying

Negligence in surveying occurs when a surveyor fails to perform their duties with the expected standard of care, resulting in financial or other losses to their client. This includes failing to identify defects, provide comprehensive reports, or advise on necessary precautions.

SAAMCO Cap

The SAAMCO cap refers to a principle established in the SAAMCO case, limiting a professional's liability to the financial consequences of erroneous information provided, rather than all losses resulting from the client's decision to proceed based on that information.

Conclusion

The Large v Hart & Anor decision serves as a pivotal reference in professional negligence, particularly for surveyors. It delineates the boundaries of a surveyor's duty of care, emphasizing the importance of comprehensive advice beyond mere information dissemination. The judgment underscores that when surveyors fail to identify significant defects or neglect to advise on critical precautions, they can be held liable for the resultant financial losses of their clients. This case reinforces the necessity for surveyors to exercise due diligence and provide holistic guidance to protect their clients' interests effectively.