Reported Decision: 47 NSWLR 1
(2000) NSW ConvR 55-927
New South Wales
Court of Appeal
CITATION: Ta Ho Ma Pty Ltd v Allen [1999] NSWCA 202 FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40235/98 HEARING DATE(S): 9 March 1999 JUDGMENT DATE:
28 June 1999PARTIES :
Ta Ho Ma Pty Limited
v
Christopher L AllenJUDGMENT OF: Handley JA; Giles JA; Sheppard AJA
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 0414/97 LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Raphael ADCJ
COUNSEL: A - G Rich
R - CJ BevanSOLICITORS: A - Bryan McCarthy, Dee Why
R - Nikola Velcic & Associates, ParramattaCATCHWORDS: NEGLIGENCE - Economic loss - Valuer - Negligent valuation - Duty of care - Reasonable reliance - Whether valuation stale; VALUER - Negligence - Duty of care - Reasonable reliance - Whether valuation stale. CASES CITED: Commercial Union Assurance Co of Aust Ltd v Ferrcom Pty Ltd (1991) 22 NSWLR 389
Mutual Life & Citizens' Assurance Co Ltd v Evatt (1970) 122 CLR 556
Ultramares Corporation v Touche (1931) 255 NY 170
Rogers v Whitaker (1992) 175 CLR 479
R & G Mortgages Pty Ltd v Ronald A Newton & Associates Pty Ltd (Supreme Court of Victoria, 4 July 1997, unreported)
San Sebastian Pty Ltd v The Minister (1986) 162 CLR 340
Esanda Corporation Ltd v Peat Marwick Hungerfords (1997) 188 CLR 241
Smith v Bush [1990] 1 AC 831
Hawkins v Clayton (1988) 164 CLR 539
Kondis v State Transport Authority (1984) 154 CLR 672
Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605
Harris v Wyre Forest District Council [1990] 1 AC 831DECISION: Appeal dismissed with costs
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COURT OF APPEAL
CA 40235/98
DC 0414/97HANDLEY JA
Monday, 28 June 1999
GILES JA
SHEPPARD AJA
TA HO MA PTY LIMITED v Christopher L ALLEN
JUDGMENT
1 HANDLEY JA: I am indebted to both Giles JA and Sheppard AJA for their judgments in this appeal. Because I agree that the appeal should be dismissed, and I agree generally with their reasons, my own can be brief. 2 The negligent valuation related to a residential property at 78 Jenner Road, Dural which the respondent valued at $565,000 in his valuation of 24 November 1992 made as at 20 November. In early August 1993, some 8½ months after the valuation date, Mr Beckers, who controlled Palpay Pty Ltd, the registered proprietor, telephoned a Mr Bryan McCarthy, a solicitor, and sought a loan of $360,000 on the security of the property. He told Mr McCarthy that he had a valuation from C L Allen and Associates at $565,000. Mr McCarthy said that he might be able to obtain instructions to make the loan and asked Mr Beckers to ring back in a few days. 3 The appellant lent money on first mortgage through Mr McCarthy. Mr Johnson, a practising accountant, administered its affairs and he and those controlling the appellant relied on Mr McCarthy to make mortgage investment decisions on its behalf. Mr…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Ta Ho Ma Pty Ltd v Allen and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
Details
- Case
- [1999] NSWCA 202
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Ta Ho Ma Pty Ltd (the plaintiff) brought proceedings against Allen (the defendant), a valuer, for economic loss allegedly suffered as a result of a negligent valuation. The matter proceeded to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.
The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the defendant valuer owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, and if so, whether that duty had been breached. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the valuation provided by the defendant was negligent, and whether the plaintiff had reasonably relied on that valuation, particularly in light of the time that had elapsed since the valuation was made, raising the question of whether the valuation had become "stale".
The court's reasoning focused on the principles of negligence in the context of professional services, particularly the duty of care owed by a valuer. It considered the circumstances under which a duty of care arises and the requirements for establishing a breach of that duty, including the foreseeability of the loss and the reasonableness of the plaintiff's reliance on the valuation. The court examined the evidence to determine if the valuation was indeed negligent and whether the plaintiff's reliance was reasonable given the age of the valuation and any intervening events that might have affected its accuracy.
The appeal was dismissed, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant's costs.
The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the defendant valuer owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, and if so, whether that duty had been breached. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the valuation provided by the defendant was negligent, and whether the plaintiff had reasonably relied on that valuation, particularly in light of the time that had elapsed since the valuation was made, raising the question of whether the valuation had become "stale".
The court's reasoning focused on the principles of negligence in the context of professional services, particularly the duty of care owed by a valuer. It considered the circumstances under which a duty of care arises and the requirements for establishing a breach of that duty, including the foreseeability of the loss and the reasonableness of the plaintiff's reliance on the valuation. The court examined the evidence to determine if the valuation was indeed negligent and whether the plaintiff's reliance was reasonable given the age of the valuation and any intervening events that might have affected its accuracy.
The appeal was dismissed, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant's costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal dismissed with costs
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.