Summary

Property, and not on the basis of a vacant possession valuation (which would have produced a higher figure, and so a lower damages award).

The Court of Appeal dismissed appeals by both parties.

Facts

This was the trial of the assessment of damages in a professional negligence claim against a barrister concerning a claim for lease extensions under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993. The damages to be assessed were only those flowing from one of three alleged acts of negligence (that one allegation having been admitted). The question arose whether consequences flowing from the third alleged act of negligence (which was in connection with the same lease extension claim), subsequent to the admitted act but the determination of which was not before the court, were attributable to the first act of negligence.In the course of assessing the damages, various other points arose, including questions as to (1) whether damages should be assessed with reference to the whole of the Claimants’ property or only the two flats in relation to which the negligence occurred, and (2) the basis on which the capital value of the property after the negligent act should be assessed.

Held

The consequences of the third alleged act of negligence were not attributable to the admitted negligence: South Australia Asset Management Co. v York Montague applied; The Oropesa distinguished.

The damages should be assessed by reference to the loss suffered by the Claimants on the whole of their property, not just the two flats in relation to which the negligence occurred.The capital value of the property after the negligence should be assessed on the basis of an investment valuation, on-going investment being the purpose for which the Claimants held