EWJ August 62 2025 web - Journal - Page 53
been followed by Hess and/or Stoneleigh "there would
have been no water anywhere near the timber".
ing a temporary canopy to allow drying out but the
Claimant did not agree to it.
In respect of the temporary shelter over the works,
the Claimant sought to assert that the facility was 'exceptional' for the purposes of BS 6229:2003. On this
point the Judge preferred Mr Potter's evidence that
the building was not 'exceptional' and therefore a temporary roof cover was not the only viable and effective
way to protect the CLT roof panels. As part of this, the
Judge (possibly surprisingly) accepted Mr Potter's evidence that timber buildings were not inherently
riskier than those made of brick and building in
winter was not risker than building in summer.
Commentary
This case highlights that where a Construction
Manager and Trade Contractors have been appointed
"The Architects duty is normally confined to stipulating the
final permanent result required and if this has already been
done, the Architect is under no further duty to assist….". The
Judge was clear in this case that the Claimant's decision
to appoint a Construction Manager with Trade Contractors was important and gave raise to (necessary)
consideration of the contractual obligations of the
other parties appointed, shaped and limited the
Architects duty to the Claimant.
It also serves to re-affirm, when considering scope of
duty, Lord Justice Coulson's expressed view in Rushbond PLC v The JS Desing Partnership LLP Services LTD
[2021 EWCA Civ 1889] and URS Corporation Ltd v
BDW Trading LTD [2024] 2WLR 181 that the six stage
test set out in Manchester Building Society v Grant Thornton UK LLP [2022] AC 783 is a helpful checklist, but is
primarily designed to analyse duties of care in novel
situations. It is not intended to displace consideration
of contractual obligations, where those agreements
have been negotiated and agreed via standard industry practices or convention. In this case, the work had
been procured via a construction management contract with a Construction Manager and Trade Contractors, which the Judge held to be "fairly standard
practice in the construction industry and is certainly not an
unusual or novel method of procuring construction work".
Accordingly, the Judge found that the Architect did
not have an obligation undertake an MCCP or risk assessment and the combined specifications produced
were suitable (if complied with).
In respect of the alleged failure to identify that Hess'
tender contained no adequate moisture protection,
the Judge found that the Architect had an extremely
limited role in considering the tenders and was not required to review and report upon Hess' tender.
As to the alleged failure by the Architect to take appropriate steps in response to the CLT being exposed
to sustained rainfall, this comprised of four parts, three
of which are of note:
l The Architect should have advised Stoneleigh/ JCA/
the Claimant not to install the Vapour Control Layer
("VCL") in existing wet conditions: on the basis of the
factual evidence, the Judge found this allegation failed
because "everyone knew the VCL should not be installed in
wet conditions".
In practical terms, this case also serves as a reminder
that these types of cases are won and lost on the technical evidence. It is crucial that appointed experts are
sufficiently experienced to give evidence on the main
technical issues of your case. One is compelled to observe: a great job by the Architect's expert to convince
the Judge that no distinction need be made between
weather in winter and summer, and that timber is no
more vulnerable than masonry. Chapeau.
l The Architect should have instructed and/or
advised the Claimant/JCA that moisture levels of the
CLT should be tested: The Judge found that this allegation failed on the basis that the Architect had been
told that the "moisture content has been continuously monitored by Plotfrom on site and is currently 12%".
Authors
Giles Tagg
James Morris
www.dacbeachcroft.com
l The Architect should have instructed and/or
advised the Claimant/JCA that a temporary cover
should be constructed: this allegation failed on the
basis that the Judge preferred the Defendant's factual
witness testimony that there was a discussion regard-
RM Architects
- Mobile: 07979 906 330
Email: richard@rm-architects.com - Website: www.rm-architects.com
The Bungalow, Home Yard, Hatfield House, Hatfield, AL9 5NQ
Richard Morton combines his work as an experienced expert witness with his design work as
head of a busy award-winning practice.
His view is that expert architectural evidence should always be based around the knowledge
and experience of an architect with day-to-day involvement in live construction projects.
Richard’s design work over forty years includes high-end residential projects, hotels, listed
buildings and City of London office buildings.
He specialises in older people’s housing and care-homes and was recently a member of the
government Older People’s Housing Taskforce. Richard is much in demand as an expert,
receiving instructions, often repeat instructions, from a wide range of major solicitors.
Recent instructions have involved listed building disputes and fire claims.
He supports legal teams with expert witness evidence in disputes relating to all stages of design
and construction:
• Feasibility studies • Planning applications and appeals • Contract administration
• Design defects • Design coordination • Building defects
EXPERT WITNESS JOURNAL
51
AUGUST/SEPT 2025