Park Homes v Avison Young: High Court Limits Negligence Claim but Allows Key Claims to Proceed

What did the High Court decide?

In Park Homes Investments Limited v Avison Young (UK) Limited [2026] EWHC 2713 (BP), Chief Master Shuman considered applications brought in proceedings concerning valuation and stock-audit reports produced between April 2020 and March 2022.

Avison Young (UK) Limited (AY) applied to strike out all or part of the claim and sought summary judgment under the Civil Procedure Rules. Park Homes Investments Limited (PHIL) separately sought permission to amend its particulars of claim, including amendments concerning an alleged oral instruction to identify “red flags” and the way it pleaded causation and loss of chance.

The court dismissed AY’s strike-out application. Its summary judgment application succeeded in part in relation to the April 2020 report, but the claims concerning the four later reports survived. The proposed “red flags” amendment was refused, while the causation amendments were permitted. AY’s application for an immediate order for its pre-action costs was also dismissed.

What was the dispute about?

PHIL provided funding to companies within the Royale group under arrangements involving the transfer of title to identified mobile homes and contractual mechanisms for repurchase or substitution. The principal transactions took place in April 2020 and January 2021, involving advances of approximately £5 million and £3.2 million respectively.

AY was instructed on several occasions to undertake valuations and stock audits. Some work involved desktop valuation exercises, while other engagements included physical inspections at residential parks. PHIL alleged that the reports overstated the value of the homes or failed adequately to identify and explain information about occupation and sales.

PHIL’s case was that visible signs of occupation could have been relevant to value and could have prompted it to investigate the status of the assets or use contractual protections. It alleged that competent reporting would have enabled it to take steps such as seeking substitute homes, exercising put options, controlling sales or pursuing recovery from the relevant companies or guarantors.

AY denied that its duties extended to investigating legal title, determining whether sales had completed or examining the honesty and financial standing of PHIL’s counterparty. It maintained that the scope of each engagement was defined by the relevant instructions and written terms, and that the losses claimed were substantially connected with the alleged wrongdoing and default of the Royale group.

What were the five reports?

The judgment examined five reports individually because the scope of AY’s instructions and the work undertaken differed over time.

• 17 April 2020 — April 2020 report A desktop valuation of 38 mobile homes, valued as a parcel at £5.75 million. No physical inspections had taken place.
• 8 September 2020 — September 2020 report A physical stock audit intended to check the presence of 46 homes against supplied stock sheets.
• 19 January 2021 — January 2021 report A valuation-style report concerning 87 homes, assessed at approximately £14.37 million and marked “Subject to Inspection”.
• 25 February 2021 — February 2021 report An updated report following physical inspections, containing photographs and classifications including “Sold”, “SSTC” and “Owner Occupied”.
• March 2022 — March 2022 report A further engagement combining a physical stock audit with an updated valuation and market commentary.

The court stressed that the claims could not be assessed as a single undifferentiated allegation of professional negligence. The duty, alleged breach, purpose of the work and losses claimed had to be considered by reference to each report.

Why did the April 2020 claim partly fail?

The April 2020 engagement was a desktop valuation exercise. AY had not been instructed to carry out a physical inspection or investigate ownership, completed sales or the financial standing of Royale. Its valuation duty was directed towards assessing the value of the identified mobile homes.

PHIL alleged that the valuation of £5.75 million was negligent and outside the range open to a reasonably competent valuer. The court held that this claim had a real prospect of success. The absence of a formal expert report at that stage did not make the claim unsuitable to proceed, although PHIL would need to provide further particulars and expert evidence in due course.

However, the court distinguished losses attributable to overvaluation from losses caused by the subsequent disposal of homes, retention of sale proceeds, Royale’s default or its inability to perform its obligations. Those losses arose from risks different from the risk addressed by the April valuation duty.

The scope of a professional duty depends on the purpose of the work undertaken and the risk the duty was intended to guard against.

Editorial summary of the court’s reasoning.

Accordingly, AY obtained summary judgment on the specified wider losses claimed under the April 2020 valuation. PHIL may continue to pursue its claim for loss attributable to negligent overvaluation, subject to further particularisation.

Why will the later claims proceed?

September 2020: physical stock audit

The September engagement involved physical inspections. PHIL alleged that some homes showed visible signs of occupation and that a reasonably competent surveyor should have observed and reported those features and explained their significance.

The court distinguished observing occupation from investigating whether a sale had legally completed or title had passed. The surviving case concerned what AY should reasonably have observed during the physical audit and whether the professional circumstances required the information to be reported or explained. Those questions required a fuller evidential record, including inspection photographs and site notes.

January 2021: valuation before inspection

The January report valued 87 homes at approximately £14.37 million before physical inspection. A dispute arose over 29 homes described in a schedule as “sold”. AY relied on correspondence in which PHIL’s managing director instructed it to include the homes on the assumption that they were not agreed for sale. PHIL maintained that it understood the descriptions to refer to anticipated transactions that had not completed.

The court considered that the contemporaneous correspondence provided support for AY’s position, but the parties’ differing accounts and understanding of the commercial arrangements required determination at trial. The valuation claim therefore survived summary judgment.

February 2021: inspection findings and unchanged valuation

The February report followed physical inspections and included photographs and classifications such as “For Sale”, “Temporary Accommodation”, “Sold”, “SSTC” and “Owner Occupied”. PHIL argued that AY recorded information about occupation and sales without adequately explaining its significance or qualifying the valuation, which remained unchanged.

The central question was whether reasonable professional care required more than including the information in an appendix. The court identified issues concerning the prominence of the information, whether its significance should have been explained and whether the valuation required reconsideration or qualification. Those questions required factual findings and expert evidence.

March 2022: combined audit and valuation

The March 2022 engagement combined physical-audit and valuation work. The report recorded that sales had been agreed in respect of 69 units, with anticipated completion dates between February and March 2022.

AY relied on the supplied stock schedule and contractual provisions allowing it to rely on information provided for the engagement. PHIL argued that the combined nature of the work meant inspection findings had to be considered alongside the valuation. The court held that the significance of the available information and the professional standards applicable to the combined work required determination at trial.

What happened to the proposed amendments?

The proposed “red flags” instruction was refused

PHIL sought permission to plead that its managing director had told AY’s surveyor that it expected the due-diligence work to identify and report any “red flags”. The alleged conversation was disputed: PHIL’s witness said it occurred, while AY’s surveyor denied it.

The court considered that PHIL had sufficient evidence to demonstrate a real prospect of establishing that some conversation of the kind described had occurred. However, the allegation had not appeared in the extensive pre-action correspondence or the original particulars of claim, and no satisfactory explanation had been given for its earlier absence.

The expression “red flags” was also insufficiently precise to define the additional professional obligation said to arise. PHIL’s existing case already allowed it to argue that AY should have identified and explained material matters encountered during the agreed work. The court therefore refused permission to introduce the separate oral-instruction case. The factual dispute about whether the conversation occurred remained unresolved.

Causation and loss-of-chance amendments were permitted

The court took a different approach to amendments clarifying causation. PHIL alleged that competent reporting would have enabled it to take protective steps, including substituting homes, exercising put options, controlling sales or pursuing recovery from Royale and other parties.

The court applied the distinction between a claimant’s own hypothetical conduct and the subsequent conduct of third parties. PHIL would have to establish, on the balance of probabilities, what it itself would have done. Where the outcome depended on the hypothetical actions of third parties, it could rely on a real and substantial chance of achieving a better result.

The amendments were permitted to clarify that distinction and the outcomes said to have been available. The underlying causation questions, including what PHIL would have done and whether the proposed steps would have produced a better financial result, remain matters for the proceedings.

What did the court decide on pre-action costs?

AY asked the court to order PHIL to pay its pre-action costs in any event, arguing that PHIL’s allegations had changed materially between the pre-action correspondence and the claim eventually pleaded.

The court acknowledged that some allegations had been abandoned or materially changed, while important elements of the valuation case had emerged after the Letter of Claim. Those developments could be relevant to costs under the Pre-Action Protocol for Professional Negligence.

However, the court also considered the purpose of the pre-action process, which includes narrowing issues and helping parties understand the dispute before proceedings. It was not appropriate to impose a costs consequence automatically merely because a claim had narrowed. The surviving claims also concerned reports and inspections that would remain relevant at trial.

Chief Master Shuman therefore dismissed AY’s application for an immediate order requiring PHIL to pay the pre-action costs in any event. The costs consequences, including any identifiable expenditure caused by allegations later abandoned or materially reformulated, remain available for consideration when the overall costs are determined.

What does the judgment mean for professional negligence claims?

The decision highlights the importance of defining a professional retainer by reference to the task undertaken, the purpose of the work and the risks the duty was intended to address. A professional’s responsibilities do not automatically extend to every loss connected with the wider commercial transaction.

It also demonstrates why different engagements and reports may require separate analysis. A desktop valuation, a physical stock audit and a later report combining inspection and valuation can raise materially different questions about the information available and what reasonable professional care required.

For claimants, the judgment underlines the importance of pleading the alleged breach and resulting loss with sufficient precision. Where causation depends on the claimant’s own hypothetical actions, those actions must be established on the balance of probabilities. Any later benefit dependent on third parties must be supported by a real and substantial chance rather than speculation.

For professionals and their advisers, the decision illustrates the importance of clear written instructions, accurate records, appropriately explained inspection findings and careful documentation of assumptions used in valuations. The court’s refusal of the “red flags” amendment also demonstrates the procedural importance of explaining new factual allegations and defining the duty said to arise from them.

The judgment does not determine that AY was negligent in relation to the surviving claims. Those issues remain to be decided following further evidence, including expert evidence where appropriate.