David Goldstein v Levy Gee (A Firm)

[2003] EWHC 1574 (Ch)
Lewison J
Chancery Division
July 2003

 

An accountant was not held to be negligent for a share valuation, regardless of errors, where the end result figure was within the permissible margin of error bracket.

Goldstein claimed damages against Levy Gee for negligent share valuation. Goldstein was made redundant from an estate agency which he had helped to set up and in which he held shares. This triggered a provision in the company's articles of association and Goldstein was deemed to have given the directors a transfer notice. The price for the shares fell to be determined by Levy Gee as valuers. The valuation took into account a portfolio value determined by a separate firm which included a 10% portfolio discount. Goldstein was disappointed with the final figure and alleged negligence.

The court held clearly that in valuation cases many questions were a matter of judgment, which had to be exercised with reasonable skill and care. The court's reasoning in Merivale Moore v Strutt & Parker (1999) had to be followed - it was a necessary precondition of liability that the figures being considered, fell outside the permissible margin of error or bracket. It was the decisiveness of the end result that was important as opposed to the process by which the valuer reached the end result. The valuer, in seeking a portfolio valuation and in relying upon it, had committed an error which caused him to fall below the standard to be expected of a competent auditor undertaking a share valuation. The relevant figure should have been the full aggregate values of the properties. However, in this instance the final share valuation was within the permissable margin of error or bracket and it followed, in accordance with the law laid down in Merivale Moore, that it was not negligent.