EIGER FUNDING (PCC) LTD v RIDGE AND PARTNERS LLP

[2026] EWHC 609 (TCC), Technology and Construction Court, Mr Adrian Williamson KC, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court, 16 March 2026

Professional negligence – Scope of duty – Breach of duty – Loss recoverable

The claimant, Eiger Funding (PCC) Ltd, brought a claim for damages for professional negligence against the defendant, Ridge and Partners LLP. In 2018 the claimant lent £12.9 million to Signature Living Residential Ltd, part of a group of companies, in order to fund the completion of a development in Liverpool. At the time of the loan it was anticipated that the development would be completed in the first half of 2019 so that the loan would be repaid within 12 months. This did not happen and in April 2020 the Signature companies were placed in administration. The outcome of all of this was that the claimant sustained a significant loss on the transaction and it sought to recover damages from the defendant, who had acted as independent fund monitoring surveyors, in respect of the losses which it had sustained. The Deputy Judge held that the defendant owed to the claimant a duty to advise with reasonable care and skill upon: (i) the adequacy of the contract sum for the project; (ii) any risks which could result in a cost overrun; (iii) any risks which could impact on the completion of the development in accordance with the programme; and (iv) the costs to complete the development. It was held that that duty had been breached in relation to project pricing and the cost to completion, the failure to give advice in connection with the relationship between the different parts of Signature group of companies which increased the risk to the claimant and in failing appropriately to handle the conflict of interest which arose from the fact that it had acted both for the Signature group and the claimant. These breaches of duty were also found to be causative of loss to the claimant. In relation to the proof of loss and scope of the duty owed by the defendant to the claimant, it was held that the risk that the duty of the defendant was supposed to guard against was that the claimant would enter into a loan agreement to provide financing for the development on the basis of construction costs or costs to complete the development which made the loan unduly hazardous. Based on the findings made by the Deputy Judge, there was "a significant risk that substantial costs would be incurred over and above those put forward by Signature" and the loss suffered "represented the fruition of that risk". Thus there was "a sufficient nexus between a particular element of the harm" for which the claimant sought to recover damages and the subject matter of the duty of care owed by the defendant to the claimant. It was held that the present case was a "distressed asset" case in the sense that the loss was suffered by the claimant as soon as the loan was made. Taking account of benchmarked evidence in relation to the cost of completion of a project such as the one funded by the claimant, it was held that the loss was fixed at £2.5 million and damages of that sum were awarded in favour of the claimant.