Vision Golf Ltd v Weightmans (a firm)

Damages for the negligent loss of a lease should compensate for the value of the legal asset lost, including its right to vacant possession. A temporary practical difficulty in obtaining possession should not depress the award where the court can reasonably conclude that possession would ultimately have been secured.

Where reliable trading information is unavailable, the court may assess value by reference to comparable businesses and assume that the lost business was neither better nor worse than comparable businesses. The court is not bound mechanically to adopt an expert’s conclusions. Where an asset forms part of a commercially valuable whole, its value may be assessed by apportioning the value of the whole rather than valuing the asset in isolation.

This was an assessment of damages following an earlier liability and causation trial before Lewison J. Liability for professional negligence by Weightmans had been admitted. The earlier judgment held that the negligence caused the loss of Vision Golf’s lease of the GA land, but not the loss of its separate lease of the TR land.

The principal issue was the value, at the end of June 2000, of the GA lease. The court also had to determine the effect of the absence of trading information, the occupation of the land by Mr Middleton, the remaining lease term, the history of tipping, the restriction on assigning the GA lease separately, and certain ancillary sums.

1. Loss of vacant-possession right. The court assessed compensation for the valuable lease that negligence had caused Vision Golf to lose. The lease carried a legal right to vacant possession. Although Mr Middleton might have caused practical delay or obstruction, the evidence did not justify assuming that Vision Golf could not ultimately have obtained possession. The award was therefore based on a lease with vacant possession, not on a temporarily depressed market value.
2. Valuation methodology. The absence of reliable trading information did not require the court to treat the lease as having only nominal value. A valuation based on assumed profits would be speculative, but comparable transactions could provide a sufficiently reliable guide. The appropriate exercise was to assume that the business was neither better nor worse than comparable businesses and to use that assumption to assess the underlying value of the lost asset.
3. Expert evidence. Even where only one expert gives evidence on a particular issue, the judge must examine that evidence critically and form a view from the totality of the evidence. The court adopted a value of £550,000 for the two leasehold interests together.
4. Apportionment. The GA lease was properly valued as an apportioned part of the value of the two leases together. The GA land contained the clubhouse, car park and access, supporting an apportionment of 67.5 per cent. The value of the GA lease was therefore £371,250.
5. The agreed costs and deductions were brought into account. Vision Golf was also awarded £1,000 for wasted advice, and simple interest under section 35 A of the Supreme Court Act 1981 from 1 July 2000. The total damages were assessed at £333,379.13, subject to the stated interest.

The judgment was a first-instance assessment of damages following the earlier liability and causation judgment of Lewison J. The citation of that earlier judgment is not stated in the judgment.