The claimant provided a GBP 2.2m loan facility in February 2011, on the basis of the defendant’s valuation of a property. Nine months later, the defendant revalued the property, on the basis of which the claimant provided a further, increased, loan facility. The second loan fully redeemed, and replaced, the first loan. When the second loan term ended the borrower failed to repay the sum due. The claimant alleged that the second valuation had been negligent and sought to recover the shortfall following sale of the property from the defendant.

The Court held that that there could be no claim in relation to the first valuation because it had been fully redeemed and the claimant had therefore suffered no loss in relation to it. The claim in relation to the second valuation had to stand or fall on its own merits, and the Court found that the losses attributable to the existing indebtedness - the monies advanced by the claimant under the first loan facility and outstanding at the time of the second loan facility - were not caused by any negligence in the second valuation. Summary judgment was therefore granted to this extent, although it was acknowledged that it was open to the claimant to seek to amend its particulars of loss, as the value of any lost claim in relation to the first valuation could be relevant to ascertaining the extent of the loss caused by a negligent second valuation.