The potentially landmark case of Scullion v Bank of Scotland has been withdrawn from the Supreme Court schedule by the claimant.

The case involved the development of new residential flats, one of which Mr Scullion, the claimant, has agreed to purchase and had applied for finance from a specialist buy-to-let mortgage provider.

A valuer employed by Colleys – now part of Bank of Scotland – was instructed by the mortgage provider to provide a valuation for the capital value and anticipated rental value of the scheme.

After completion, Scullion was only able to let the flat for half of the monthly value Colleys had predicted. He filed a negligence claim against Colleys who defended the claim on various grounds - principally that they did not owe Mr Scullion a duty of care.

Alexandra Anderson, litigation partner specialising in valuation negligence at Reynolds Porter Chamberlain, said: “Mr Scullion’s decision to drop his case is good news for valuers. It means that the potential wave of buy-to-let investors bringing claims against surveyors is now unlikely to materialise as the law on duty of care is against them.

“It could also lead to the re-entry to the insurance market of a number of large insurers which had withdrawn previously, and to new entrants, and increase demand for professional independent valuation advice among buy-to-let investors.”

Scullion had won his case at first instance in 2011, because previous case law had established that the duty of care owed by a surveyor to the lender that instructed them is also extended to the borrower purchasing the property. However, the case was then overturned by the Court of Appeal, which decided that the duty of care rule did not automatically apply where the transaction related to an investment in a buy-to-let property rather than an ordinary residential purchase.

The final hearing had been due to take place on the 16 th & 17 th of April 2013 at the Supreme Court, and it could have reinstated the original ruling and prompted a rush of claims against valuers.

The reason for the withdrawal of the case is not yet known, it could be due to Scullion and Colleys reaching an out-of-court financial settlement, or possibly Scullion simply withdrew his case because he believed that he would lose.