EWJ August 62 2025 web - Journal - Page 50
Design Liability in Construction
Construction disputes involving technical complexities can benefit from ADR approaches.
The Technology and Construction Court recently
handed down judgment in MJS Projects (March) Ltd v
RPS Consulting Services Ltd [2025] EWHC 831 (TCC),
a case addressing design liability in construction projects. The judgment, delivered on 9 April 2025, provides important insight to the responsibilities of design
consultants and contractors in design and build
arrangements.
tity from the claimant) was negligent, but disagreeing
on items including:
l Whether the design properly accounted for
dynamic load factors.
l Whether the dowels (as designed) would have been
adequate to transfer loads across the concrete joints.
l How loads would transfer across the joint between
concrete slabs and drain surrounds.
Key issues in dispute
The case concerned the design and construction of a
container park near Felixstowe Port. MJS Projects
(March) Limited (MJS), a regional building contractor
operating in East Anglia, was engaged as the main
contractor under a JCT Design and Build contract.
MJS subsequently subcontracted the design responsibilities to RPS Consulting Services Limited (RPS).
l Whether a Mass Concrete Taper (MCT) was necessary for the design to work.
A notable aspect of the case was RPS’s pleading that if
any damage was caused or contributed to by MJS
Construction, this would constitute a concurrent cause
of the damage claimed.
The defendant also attempted to introduce new
arguments, including an allegation that MJS had
failed to supervise the builders, MJS Construction.
However, the court accepted the claimant’s submission that this allegation was not sufficiently pleaded in
the defence.
The work was completed in August 2017, but by
December 2017, the concrete surrounding three Gatic
slot drains in the container yard showed significant
deterioration, including settlement, cracking and
damage. MJS Projects claimed the damage resulted
from RPS’s negligent design, while RPS argued
defective construction was to blame.
Court’s findings
Her Honour Judge Kelly concluded that the damage
identified by December 2017 was caused by defective
construction, not negligent design. Judge Kelly determined that RPS’s design was neither negligent nor
in breach of contract. Even if there had been design
errors, the judge found these would not have caused
the damage that manifested by December 2017.
The central dispute concerned whether the damage
resulted from RPS’s allegedly negligent design or
from defective construction. MJS Projects claimed
that RPS’s design was inadequate regarding load
distribution calculations and dowel specifications.
A critical technical issue involved the dowels
connecting the concrete slabs to the drain surrounds.
The design specified 32mm dowels, but 25mm dowels were actually installed. Additionally, these dowels
were placed incorrectly at approximately 75mm from
the surface rather than the specified 200mm depth.
Final thoughts
For construction professionals, especially those with
design liability, the case underscores the importance
of maintaining clear documentation of design decisions and construction processes, as well as ensuring
proper supervision of construction work, particularly
when design responsibilities have been subcontracted.
Expert evidence and concurrent causation
The case turned primarily on expert evidence, with
both parties agreeing that some of the construction
work performed by MJS Construction (a separate en-
EXPERT WITNESS JOURNAL
Given the technical complexity involved, construction
disputes of this nature can benefit from ADR ap-
48
AUGUST/SEPT 2025
