EWJ 60 April 2025 web - Journal - Page 81
Court holds Consultant’s Negligent
Ground Condition Report did not
Cause Property Developer’s Loss
The Technology and Construction Court held in Darcliffe Homes Ltd v Glanville Consultants
and another that a consultant was not liable for a property developer’s loss despite negligent advice in the consultant’s ground condition report.
In Darcliffe Homes Ltd v Glanville Consultants and
another, the Technology and Construction Court
(TCC) held that there was an insufficient link between
negligent advice in a consultant’s ground condition
report and a property developer’s loss.
the court held that Darcliffe’s claim failed on grounds
of causation. This was for three main reasons:
1. Glanville did not need to do much more in order
not to be held negligent
The court was persuaded by expert evidence that all
Glanville had to do to avoid breach of its duties was
provide a “single simple warning about the potential
for deep weathering and chalk dissolution”.
Background
In 2014, Darcliffe Homes Ltd (“Darcliffe”) engaged
Glanville Consultants (“Glanville”) to provide a desktop report investigating the ground conditions for an
area of land at Stoneham Farm near Reading (the
“Site”). Glanville provided an updated report in 2016,
which was substantially the same as the 2014 report.
Both reports indicated that there were no significant
issues with ground conditions at the Site.
Importantly, Glanville did not suggest there was no
risk at all; Glanville had indicated that the Site’s geology was at a “low risk” of ground dissolution, which
the expert cited by Darcliffe accepted was “probably
correct”.
The court noted this was potentially within the realm
of non-negligent advice.
Darcliffe also asked Ground and Water Limited
(GWL) to produce an intrusive site investigation for
the proposed development at the Site. GWL issued a
final report in respect of these investigations in 2018.
2. The Judge did not accept that Darcliffe’s
corporate mind would have been much affected, if
at all, if Glanville had given non-negligent advice
In cross-examination, one of Darcliffe’s principals
indicated that he only skim-read Glanville’s report
and was aware of the “low risk” conclusion.
In November 2019, Darcliffe purchased the Site for
around £5 million to build a housing development.
After purchasing the Site, Darcliffe discovered that
there was a high risk of ground dissolution (which can
lead to collapse) due to the presence of chalk beneath
the site.
The Judge stated it was likely that Darcliffe’s
principal would either have not noticed an additional
warning about chalk dissolution on a “skim read” or,
at most, would have drawn it to the attention of GWL
prior to its intrusive investigations.
Darcliffe incurred substantial remedial costs when
constructing the development, which it alleged was
the result of failures by Glanville and GWL to report
the potential for ground dissolution at the Site. Darcliffe raised a court action claiming damages of approximately £7.5 million for negligence and breach of
contract.
3. Darcliffe would not have acted differently if it had
been given non-negligent advice
Darcliffe argued that, if provided with non-negligent
advice from Glanville, it would have re-briefed GWL
prior to undertaking intrusive investigations. However, GWL had received the Envirocheck data that indicated a risk of ground dissolution alongside
Glanville’s report.
The claim against GWL was settled out of court, but
the claim against Glanville proceeded to trial.
Decision
The court held that Glanville had acted negligently
and in breach of its contractual duties to exercise reasonable skill and care by giving the Site a “clean bill of
health” in both of its reports.
Further, GWL noted that the site was underlain by
chalk in its 2018 report. So, the court held that GWL
and Darcliffe were in no different a position in
2017/18 than they would have been if Glanville had
provided non-negligent advice.
Glanville did not undertake proper analysis of information it cited, including ground condition data from
a company called Envirocheck, which indicated that
chalk dissolution features were present in five locations near the Site. The court found that “Glanville
simply did not engage with the fact that the Site and
its environs were underlain by chalk”.
However, despite Glanville’s clear breach of its duties,
EXPERT WITNESS JOURNAL
The court held that Darcliffe failed to establish a
sufficient link between its losses and Glanville’s
breaches and dismissed the claim.
Key takeaways
This case provides the following lessons:
l Depending on the facts of the case, a desktop
ground investigation may not give rise to liability
79
APRIL 2025
