EWJ August 62 2025 web - Journal - Page 52
An Architect's Tale of Rotten Timber
(and Claimant's Rotten Luck)
By Giles Tagg & James Morris - /www.dacbeachcroft.com
Overview
Vitsoe Ltd v Waugh Thistleton Architects Ltd [2025] EWHC
850 (TCC) considers the scope of an Architect's duty
in respect of Cross Laminated Timber ("CLT") and
the need to adequately protect it from moisture. The
project involved the construction of a headquarters,
office and distribution facility at Princess Drive, Royal
Leamington Spa. The roof panels of the facility were
constructed from CLT, which became wetted during
construction primarily as a result of a sustained period of rainfall around Christmas 2016. Consequently,
the CLT roof panels became rotten, began to decay
and had to be repaired and/or replaced.
Key issues
The Judge grappled with the following principal
questions:
1. What was the scope of the Architect's duties in light
of the appointment of the parties and their respective
obligations?
2. Did the Architect breach its duties by:
2.1 Failing to produce a Moisture Content Control
Plan (MCCP) or risk assessment?
2.2 Failing to identify that Hess' tender contained no
adequate moisture protection during construction?
The Claimants advanced a claim for the allegedly
negligent provision of architectural services. It asserted inadequate designs in respect of moisture protection to the CLT roof panels and claimed remedial
costs totalling £4,405,403.
2.3 Failing to take appropriate steps in response to the
CLT being exposed to sustained rainfall around
Christmas 2016?
Scope of duty
The Judge held the Architect was under a duty to
provide design information, but that Hess completed
the detailed design of the timber frame and
Stoneleigh complete the detailed design of the roof
coverings. In essence, this was on account of the contractual provisions entered into by those parties.
The claim failed. The Judge found that the scope of
the Architect's duties did not extend in the manner
contended for by the Claimant. We explore the reasons for this below and consider the wider implications of the Judgment.
The parties
The Defendant Architect was appointed by the
Claimant via a written contract as "Architect, Design
Team Leader and Principal Designer" to provide architectural services in relation to the construction of the
facility. The scope of its services were outlined in a
schedule to the contract and the Defendant undertook to use reasonable skill and care and also to coordinate the design works.
Similarly, the Architect owed a duty to co-ordinate
designs, but not the programme of the other parties.
Importantly, it was found that the Architect did not
owe a duty to protect the Trade works during their
construction and that this was the responsibility of
Hess and Stoneleigh respectively who were also
obliged to exercise reasonable care and skill to satisfy
the performance requirements of the Defendant's
Timber Frame Combined specifications (which stipulated criterion for protection works, adverse weather
working and membrane work).
The following parties were also appointed:
l JCA Concept Construction Limited ("JCA") as
Construction Manager was responsible for: reviewing
designs produced and advising on their feasibility/sustainability for construction, management and control
of the site including maintaining overall programme,
ensuring adequate steps were taken to protect the
works and complying with the Claimant's instructions
as well as issuing instructions to Hess and Stoneleigh.
Alleged breaches of duty
The alleged breaches were subject to extensive input
from the Claimant and Architect's respective experts:
Ms Hoey and Mr Potter. The Judge felt that Mr Potter had sufficient experience to deal with the technical evidence and overall preferred his evidence that
of Ms Hoey.
l Hess Timber GmbH and Co ("Hess") as the timber
frame contractor was required to: complete detailed
designs of the timber frame, protect the works, ensure
that moisture testing was carried out on site, co-ordinate with JCA and Stoneleigh and comply with
instructions issued by JCA.
As part of the allegation that the Architect failed to
produce an MCCP it was stated that it ".. would and/or
should have concluded that the only reliable and effective way
to protect the…. flat roof CLT panels during the construction
phase was to erect a temporary shelter over the works". It was
common ground between the parties' expert that
there was no mandatory requirement to produce an
MCCP and that the specifications produced by the Architect functioned as an effective moisture plan. Further, Ms Hoey conceded that had this specification
l Stoneleigh Services Limited ("Stoneleigh") as the
roofing contractor was required to: complete detailed
designs of the roof covering, protect the works,
co-ordinate with JCA and Hess and comply with
instructions issued by JCA.
EXPERT WITNESS JOURNAL
50
AUGUST/SEPT 2025
