The dispute arose over the appointment of a valuer to act as an independent expert on a rent review. The clause required the valuer to be ‘experienced in the valuation and letting of premises… within the island of Jersey’, but the president of the RICS ended up nominating a valuer who had considerable experience but not of Jersey (the president taking the view that there was no one in Jersey with experience of that specific category of property). L felt the classification of a property was incorrect and thus a Jersey expert could have been found, and therefore applied to the Jersey court for the appointment to be declared void. The end result was that the court decided the president was acting as an expert (because of his expertise in choosing other experts). His decision as an expert could not be challenged unless he had ‘materially departed’ from his instructions. On the facts, he had not.

What is really significant about this case is that it raises the spectre of legal challenges to the appointment of experts. It also raises the possibility of a claim (either in breach of contract or for a breach of duty of care) against the president (or anyone else who has to nominate an appropriate expert) by a disgruntled party. What does seem to emerge is that if the appointment is not in accordance with the lease (or with what the parties have agreed) then the president may face a challenge in the court. Needless to say, that is something the RICS is deeply concerned about. For a note on Epoch Properties v BHS [2004] in [2004] EG 30 October 144. © Practical Lawyer