| Date | 10 April 2002 |
|
|
| Judgment | Consarc Design Limited v Hutch Investments Limited, TCC 19 February 2002 |
|
|
| The Issue | The extent of an architect's duty to inspect or supervise a contractor's work. |
|
|
| Implication |
Subject to the express terms of the architect's agreement, an architect's duty to inspect the works does not amount to a warranty that the works will be carried out free from defects. |
printThe recent case of Consarc Design v Hutch Investments considered, amongst other matters, an architect's duty to inspect a contractor's works. Hutch look after the interests of a member of the Royal family of the United Arab Emirates. The family own Tittenhurst Park, a large house set in extensive parkland in Sunninghill, Berkshire. It was decided that, as a surprise gift for the Sheikh, a summerhouse should be built in the grounds of Tittenhurst Park. The summerhouse was originally built as a majlis, or meeting house, but this use was later changed to be a residence for the Sheikh on his visits to England. The summer house was no ordinary garden building. The fitting out works alone were to cost in the order of £2 million. Hutch engaged Consarc, a firm of architects, for design works. It was agreed that the project would be constructed on a fast-track basis, such that construction would start without the design being fully completed, with the objective of achieving an early completion over a period of some sixteen weeks from commencement. In the event, the project was completed late and, having paid substantial additional sums of monies to the contractor, Hutch sought to recover part of those monies from Consarc. Hutch alleged, amongst other matters, a failure to produce drawings and other construction information in accordance with the project timetable. Those claims were rejected by His Honour Judge Bowsher QC on the evidence. Consarc had never assumed overall responsible for programming and had never agreed, or warranted, that it would provide information in accordance with the contractor's programme. A second issue between the parties concerned the failure of the limestone floor to the summerhouse which required to be re-laid at a cost of £110,000. Originally, the complaint was that Consarc had designed the floor badly. It was then alleged that the floor screed was inadequately cured. Finally it was contended that the floor slab was inadequately scarified before the screed was laid. Hutch relied on Stage K.08 of the RIBA Standard Form of Agreement 1992; "(The Architect shall) at intervals, appropriate to the stage of construction visit the works to inspect the progress and quality of the works and to determine that they are being executed generally in accordance with the contract documents". Judge Bowsher commented that this was a vague statement of duty. He considered that it was generally agreed that an architect is not required to visit and supervise the work at all stages to ensure that the contractor complies with its contract. He noted that the older forms of construction contract required the architect to "supervise". The more recent JCT contracts require the architect to "visit the works to inspect the progress and quality of the works". Judge Bowsher was of the view that inspection was a lesser responsibility than supervision. He cited his own words in the 1992 case of Corfield v Grant, in which he said with regard to supervision; "an architect's duty is to exercise reasonable skill and care in seeking to achieve a particular result; he does not guarantee that a particular result will be achieved". The House of Lords also looked into the duty of an architect to make a reasonable examination before issuing a final certificate. In the 1966 case of East Ham Corporation v Bernard Sunley & Sons, the House considered the duties and responsibilities that an architect might typically have upon visiting the site "He may in such circumstances think that he knows the builder sufficiently well and can rely upon him to carry out a good job; that it is more important that he should deal with urgent matters on the site than that he should make a minute inspection on the site to see that the builder is complying with the specifications laid down by him. It by no means follows that, in failing to discover a defect which a reasonable examination would have disclosed, in fact, the architect was necessarily thereby in breach of his duty to the building owner so as to be liable in an action for negligence." The duty to supervise was also considered in Sutcliffe v Chippendale & Edmonson in 1971, where Judge William Stabb QC said "I think that the degree of supervision required of an architect must be governed to some extent by his confidence in the contractor. If and when something occurs which should indicate a lack of competence in the contractor, then, in the interests of his employer, the standard of his supervision should be higher. No one suggests that the architect is required to tell a contractor how his work is to be done, nor is the architect responsible for the manner in which the contractor does the work". Both Hutch and Consarc called architects as expert witnesses. No clear picture could be determined from their evidence. All that could be said was that some architects might have inspected the floor slab before the screed had been laid and might have spotted that the slab had not been scarified, such that a good bond could not be achieved between the screed and the slab. Other reasonably competent architects would not have inspected at that stage. In conclusion, Consarc was not liable in negligence for failing to inspect the floor slab. The claim against them was dismissed.
CJ-0214
|
|||
|
© Brewer Consulting |
|||
 |
|||