Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: SYMONDS and ORS v EGAN NATIONAL VALUERS (NSW) PTY LTD [1996] NSWCA 513 Decision date: 26 February 1996
See Attachment (PDF)
Details
- AGLC
- Symonds v Egan National Valuers (NSW) Pty Ltd [1996] NSWCA 513
- Case
- [1996] NSWCA 513
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The New South Wales Court of Appeal considered a dispute between the appellants, Mr. and Mrs. Symonds, and the respondent, Egan National Valuers (NSW) Pty Ltd. The Symonds sought to recover damages for alleged negligence in the valuation of a property they purchased.
The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the respondent owed a duty of care to the Symonds in conducting the valuation, and if so, whether that duty had been breached, causing the Symonds loss. The Court also had to consider the principles governing the liability of a valuer to a purchaser who relies on a valuation prepared for a third party, in this case, a bank.
The Court of Appeal affirmed the principles established in *Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd* and *Caparo Industries plc v Dickman*, which require a plaintiff to demonstrate that a duty of care was owed by the defendant. In this instance, the Court found that the valuer's duty of care did not extend to the purchasers of the property, as the valuation was prepared for the bank and not for the specific purpose of informing the purchasers' decision to buy. The Court held that there was no sufficient proximity or assumption of responsibility between the valuer and the purchasers to establish a duty of care.
The appeal was dismissed.
The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the respondent owed a duty of care to the Symonds in conducting the valuation, and if so, whether that duty had been breached, causing the Symonds loss. The Court also had to consider the principles governing the liability of a valuer to a purchaser who relies on a valuation prepared for a third party, in this case, a bank.
The Court of Appeal affirmed the principles established in *Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd* and *Caparo Industries plc v Dickman*, which require a plaintiff to demonstrate that a duty of care was owed by the defendant. In this instance, the Court found that the valuer's duty of care did not extend to the purchasers of the property, as the valuation was prepared for the bank and not for the specific purpose of informing the purchasers' decision to buy. The Court held that there was no sufficient proximity or assumption of responsibility between the valuer and the purchasers to establish a duty of care.
The appeal was dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.