header-logo header-logo

08 July 2016
Issue: 7706 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Practice

Tiuta International Ltd (in liquidation) v De Villiers Surveyors Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 661, [2016] All ER (D) 10 (Jul)

 

The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed an appeal against summary judgment granted against the claimant on its negligence claim against the defendant surveyor where the claimant alleged loss as a consequence of the defendant’s valuation of a development which the claimant had taken as security for a refinancing transaction. The “but for” test of causation did apply, but when correctly applied it led to the conclusion that the defendant was liable to the claimant for the whole of the loss that flowed from its negligent valuation. The judge’s application of the ‘but for’ test had failed to take into account the structure of the refinancing transaction.

 

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll