The summer of 2025 saw the Court of Appeal handing down judgment in the case of Bratt v Jones [2025] EWCA Civ 562, which provides an interesting review of the law relating to valuers’ professional negligence claims.
An overview
In a nutshell, Mr Bratt, who was selling a piece of development land, argued that Mr Jones, a valuer, had undervalued his land. Mr Bratt believed his land was worth c£7-£8m, but Mr Jones took the view that £4.075m was accurate.
The work of a valuer is frequently said to be an art, and not a science, which means that the Courts hold that a “margin of error” is applicable to valuations. It is generally established that if a valuation is within the applicable margin of error, then the valuation cannot be negligent. Some leeway is permitted.
The accepted margins are:
- 5% for a standard residential property
- 10% for a one-off property
- 15% for a property with exceptional features
So, if a one-off property worth £460,000 is valued at £500,000, the £40,000 difference will not be considered negligent because it sits within the 10% margin.
What the Court of Appeal decided
The Court of Appeal confirmed in Bratt v Jones that to prove a professional negligence claim against a valuer, the claimant must:
- show that the original valuation is outside the applicable margin of error
- prove what the applicable margin of error is with expert evidence (it is not sufficient to assert that a particular bracket applies without evidence)
- explain what the valuer did to reach the valuation.
It is often the case that claimants take the view that once they have shown that the original valuation was outside the margin of error, their work is done and negligence is established. Mr Bratt took this view to an extreme, arguing that the usual burden of proof was reversed and it was up to Mr Jones to prove that he was not negligent, once Mr Bratt had asserted that the original valuation was outside the applicable margin of error. Mr Bratt did not provide any expert evidence to support his view of the applicable margin of error. He was happy to simply assert his view, and expected the Court to accept his position.
The Court of Appeal held that Mr Bratt’s argument was incorrect: the orthodox position was that it was up to Mr Bratt to prove that Mr Jones’ conduct was negligent. A precondition of proving Mr Jones was negligent was to first prove and provide expert evidence confirming that the original valuation was outside the applicable margin of error. It was for the expert to confirm the applicable margin, and it was for Mr Bratt to tie these steps together to show what Mr Jones had done wrong in reaching his valuation.
The bigger picture
Interestingly, the Court of Appeal made some comments indicating that it was not entirely convinced by the orthodox approach, despite this being the accepted position. The Court noted the apparent logical fallacy in which a valuer can overvalue a property, but if the valuation is within the applicable margin for error, the valuer will not be negligent. Even if the valuer calculated the valuation carelessly or by guesswork and arrived at a valuation that fell, by sheer luck, within the margin.
Returning to the earlier example, is it acceptable that a £40,000 overvaluation, which may have caused financial loss, is immune from challenge simply because it lies within a 10% margin of error?
This is an issue that may be considered further by the Supreme Court in due course. For the time being, Bratt v Jones has re-established the orthodox position, and serves as a helpful reminder that claimants in professional negligence valuer claims must do more to establish negligence than simply showing that a valuation falls outside their view of the applicable margin for error.
How we can help
If you believe you have suffered a loss because of an overvaluation, our professional negligence team can help. Contact Alice Evelegh-Taylor for advice on your claim.
