Park Homes Investments v Avison Young: High Court allows negligence claims to proceed but limits April 2020 losses

The High Court has allowed most of Park Homes Investments Limited’s professional negligence claims against Avison Young (UK) Limited to proceed, but granted partial summary judgment to the defendant in relation to losses arising from an April 2020 valuation.

In Park Homes Investments Limited v Avison Young (UK) Limited [2026] EWHC 2713 (BP), Chief Master Shuman dismissed the defendant’s strike-out application, permitted amendments clarifying causation and loss of chance, and rejected a proposed amendment based on an alleged oral instruction to identify “red flags”. The court also declined to order the claimant to pay the defendant’s pre-action costs immediately.

The dispute arose from funding arrangements entered into between Park Homes Investments Limited (PHIL) and companies within the Royale group between 2020 and 2022. PHIL advanced approximately £8 million under transactions involving mobile homes at residential parks. The arrangements included transfers of title, repurchase mechanisms and contractual rights intended to protect PHIL’s position.

Avison Young (AY) provided valuation and stock-audit services under five reports issued between April 2020 and March 2022. PHIL alleges that AY overvalued the homes and failed adequately to identify or explain signs of occupation and sales that could have affected their value or availability as security. It argues that competent reporting would have enabled it to take protective measures, including requiring substitute assets, exercising put options or seeking recovery from the relevant companies and guarantors.

AY denies liability, maintaining that its duties were defined by the individual instructions and written terms of appointment. It argues that it was not retained to investigate legal ownership, establish whether sales had completed or assess the honesty and financial standing of Royale.

Chief Master Shuman dismissed AY’s application to strike out the valuation and stock-audit claims. Although the valuation allegations required further particulars, including the valuation or range PHIL says a competent valuer would have reached, the pleaded case disclosed legally recognisable claims.

The court also refused summary judgment on the September 2020, January 2021, February 2021 and March 2022 reports. The surviving stock-audit claims concern whether a reasonably competent surveyor should have observed and reported visible signs of occupation and explained their professional significance. The court distinguished those allegations from any free-standing duty to investigate title or establish whether sales had legally completed. Disputed evidence, incomplete inspection material and issues requiring expert evidence meant the later claims were not suitable for summary determination.

The position differed for the April 2020 report, which was a desktop valuation of 38 mobile homes without physical inspection. The court held that losses attributable to Royale’s subsequent disposal of assets, retention of sale proceeds, default or inability to perform its obligations fell outside the purpose of the valuation duty. AY obtained summary judgment in respect of those losses. PHIL may nevertheless continue its claim for losses attributable to negligent overvaluation, subject to further particularisation.

On amendments, the court permitted PHIL to clarify the protective steps it says it would have taken and the better outcomes it had a real and substantial chance of achieving. Applying the principles in Allied Maples Group Ltd v Simmons & Simmons, Chief Master Shuman distinguished PHIL’s own hypothetical conduct, which must be proved on the balance of probabilities, from subsequent outcomes dependent on third parties, which may be assessed as a loss of chance.

Permission was refused for the proposed “red flags” amendment. Although the conflicting evidence about the alleged conversation was sufficient to demonstrate a real prospect that some such discussion occurred, the allegation had been absent from the extensive pre-action correspondence and original particulars. The court also considered that the expression did not define the additional duty with sufficient precision.

Finally, AY’s application for an immediate order requiring PHIL to pay its pre-action costs was dismissed. The court recognised that the claim had changed materially and that some allegations had been abandoned or reformulated. However, the costs consequences could not reliably be separated from the issues remaining for trial. Those costs, including any identifiable expenditure caused by changes to the case, were reserved for consideration when the overall costs of the proceedings are determined.