CA-2025-001477 - [2025] EWCA Civ 1360

Conclusion

I do not consider that any discernible error has been identified in the judge’s reasoning at [24]. What was happening in the Cardiff property market generally does not tell you anything about the alleged investment loss in respect of these particular flats. Mr Butler conceded that this was not a separate head of loss in any event and, in my view, it was not enough for him to say that Disputed Head 2 was, in some way, simply a facet of the diminution in value claim that he had outlined. Such a claim has not been pleaded and suffers from all the deficiencies noted in Section 8.4 above. In addition, investment loss claims of this kind may also fall foul of the approach taken in Calabar and Bella Casa (to which we were referred), whilst this case seems some way from Earl Terrace (which was not relied on on appeal). In short, there were numerous reasons why Disputed Head 2 was properly struck out.