Legal books and scales of justice

Landmark Professional Negligence judgment -Tiuta International Ltd v De Villiers Surveyors Ltd

Meet the team:

  • Tel: +44 (0) 161 829 2599
berg logo
Share this post: linkedin Twitter facebookshare Email
Posted in:Litigation|July 5, 2016 | Join the mailing list

Last Friday 1st July 2016 saw a landmark court ruling that is forecast to have wide implications and may raise negligence insurance policy premiums for professional advisers.  berg Partner in Dispute Resolution and Professional Negligence expert Daniel Brumpton comments.

The Court of Appeal handed down it’s decision on the matter of Tiuta International Ltd (in Liquidation) v De Villiers Surveyors Ltd on 1 July 2016. This decision has helped clarify the “but for” test in situations where a lender provides security on the strength of a negligent valuation and then later provides additional security (or replacement security) on a further negligent valuation.

The Court of Appeal (with McCombe LJ dissenting) upheld an appeal brought by Tuita International appealing the decision of the lower court summarily dismissing their claim by way of Summary Judgment.


In the leading judgment Moore-Bick LJ confirmed that in circumstances where Tiuta had (i) loaned a developer a sum of money to develop some land which was based on a negligent valuation; and (ii) then, later still, made a further loan along the lines of a refinance of the original loan (which, in effect, replaced the original loan) and that second valuation had also been negligent.  It was not open to the Respondent to argue that if the second valuation was negligent (which it denied) Tuita could not have suffered a greater loss than the amount by which the indebtedness had increased thereafter i.e. the difference between the first and second “negligent” valuation.

Put another way any negligence in relation to the second loan had not caused the loss attributable to the original loan.

As such, if the “but for” test had been applied correctly it would have lead to a conclusion that the respondent is liable to Tiuta for the whole of the loss flowing from the second negligent valuation.


In terms of impact on lending institutions then it certainly clarifies how loss will be calculated when loans have been refinanced. The risk for surveyors is that they could be found negligent for far larger sums than previously thought

To find out more about the issues raised in this post, or to discuss any queries regarding Professional Negligence and professional advisor disputes get in touch with Daniel Brumpton on or call +44 (0) 161 829 2599.
The information and opinions contained in this article are not intended to be comprehensive, nor to provide legal advice. No responsibility for its accuracy or correctness is assumed by berg or any of its partners or employees. Professional legal advice should be obtained before taking, or refraining from taking, any action as a result of this article.

Join our mailing list

More from berg


“Edward Saidu assisted me when I faced allegations over my conduct as a former director of a liquidated company [...] Edward promptly and carefully reviewed the complex and lengthy allegations and having discussed it with me responded incisively and robustly [...] I would not hesitate to recommend Edward to assist in any issues arising from directors duties.”

UK Company Director, Litigation and Insolvency client

The ‘energetic’ and ‘efficient’ team at berg includes team head Damian Carter, who is ‘a good tactician and goes the extra mile for his clients'.

Legal 500 2016, Dispute resolution – Commercial litigation