| Date | 12 July 2000 |
|
|
| Judgment | Pride Valley Foods Limited -v- Hall & Partners (Contract Management) TCC 4 May 2000. |
|
|
| The Issue | Role of quantity surveyors acting as project manager and duty towards clients concerning design matters. |
|
|
| Implication |
General discussion of the tests to be applied in cases concerning the negligence of project managers and upon the role of expert witnesses in such cases. |
printThe Courts tend to regard the project manager as a professional that does not possess a distinct professional body of knowledge against which normal standards of care may be tested. From time to time building surveyors, quantity surveyors, general practice surveyors, architects, engineers and perhaps lawyers will act as project managers. The skills they bring to that task, and indeed the duties they may carry out, will vary in part dependent upon the background of the individual engaged. Whilst there are professional institutions established to promote the training and competence of project managers, for the time being the Courts appear satisfied that the term "project manager" is not restricted to individuals that have attained recognised professional training and examination as might be expected of chartered surveyors, architects and engineers. One consequence for all of this is that actions aimed at establishing negligence in project management services often bring uncertain outcomes. In the case of Pride Valley Foods -v- Hall & Partners the Court had to decide upon the duties of a quantity surveyor acting as project manager and in particular whether that duty extended to warning clients of potential fire hazards in the design and specifications for the works. Hall & Partners had been engaged to provide project management services for the construction of a new factory for Pride Valley where the company was to make speciality Nan and Pitta breads. A fire destroyed the factory within a very short time, having spread through expanded polystyrene insulating panels in the building with such force that it was too dangerous for the fire fighters even to enter the building in order to try to put out the fire. Pride Valley claimed that the fire was caused by Hall's negligence in failing to discharge a contractual duty of care as project managers to warn against the use of expanded polystyrene filled panels. It was their argument that if such advice had been given this would have prevented or limited the spread of fire. In deciding upon the scope of project management services to be offered, Halls had proposed either a full service from inception to design, construction, commissioning and hand-over, or alternatively a service which would commence only once a successful contractor had been appointed. In the event Pride Valley went ahead with a design and build option in which Hall was retained throughout. A letter of appointment was drawn up in which Hall undertook to prepare and agree a schedule of requirements and specification, develop these into a design brief and prepare an outline sketch plan including consideration of material selection. These documents would then form the basis of employers' requirements, specifications and drawings against which design and build contractors would submit competitive bids. Thereafter Hall was to check upon all building regulation approvals and any further design work that the contractor considered necessary. Feasibility estimates and outline specifications were prepared by Hall and these included the specification of insulated PVC linings which were later found to have contributed to the extent and spread of the fire. The documents did not give any qualification as to the use of these materials although Hall later offered evidence in Court that it had warned its client that such finishes were unsuitable. Throughout design development Pride Valley had emphasised that the factory should be built to a budget and that generally the specifications should be to those minimum standards which would be required by the building and fire regulations. As an example, a proposal for the construction of a firewall between the production area and offices was rejected on the basis that this was not a requirement of the relevant regulations. In examining the duties owed by Hall his Honour Judge John Toulmin QC concluded that whilst the contract did not require Hall to undertake detailed design, it was nevertheless required to undertake a design brief and draft appropriate employers' requirements. These duties included specifying materials to be used which gave rise to a duty of care to advise upon the risks of fire commensurate with the dangers which they knew to exist. In the event Judge Toulmin concluded that Hall had not given this advice since no written record of advice existed. This was in stark contrast to numerous examples of written advice which Judge Toulmin found Hall had given upon other aspects of the building works. Crucially, however Judge Toulmin also came to the conclusion that the employer would have rejected Hall's advice unless it was supported by a requirement from the planning or fire authorities or was a requirement of its insurers. For that reason alone Pride Valley's claim failed. In giving judgment Judge Toulmin made some interesting comments about the role of expert evidence as to the duties of a project manager. He doubted whether it would ever be possible to accept expert opinion evidence on this subject. He noted that evidence which amounted to no more than an expression of opinion as to what the expert would have done did not assist the court. At most the only issue to which expert evidence could properly have been directed might be whether there was common practice, for example in the engineering or surveying professions, as to what those parties might do when engaged as project managers in relation to the matters in issue. An overriding concern however would be the question of what the project manager had expressly agreed to do.
CJ-0027
|
|||
|
© Brewer Consulting |
|||
 |
|||