Expert Witness Journal Issue 63 October 2025 - Flipbook - Page 79
negligent as they had not carried out su昀케cient on
site supervision during construction in order to
produce a PCC and therefore could not say whether
the damp proo昀椀ng elements of the doors, windows
and terrace were constructed as the drawings
demanded.
whether the judgement is fair or not, is that there are
real people involved in this and Richard Large did
not have su昀케cient indemnity insurance to cover the
eventual claim made against him. This may well be
the reason that Richard Large (and his legal team)
not only fought the court case but also appealed
against the method of apportioning damages
and lost that appeal with consequential increased
court costs. What should have been an uneventful
retirement has now meant a complete change in his
life and home circumstances as he needed to raise
money himself to cover the costs.
Expert witness testimony
The evidence given by the two experts did not play a
very big part in the case outcome. The judge did say
that because Richard Large’s expert was involved
only later on when a lot of the repair work had been
carried out as opposed to the claimant’s expert then
he was at a certain disadvantage. There was however
criticism by the judge for Large’s expert in that he
lacked analytical detail, did not take a realistic view
on the need for demolition and rebuilding, and used
inappropriate comparables. The judge did comment,
however, that “in respect of the existence of defects
in the building and the appropriate approach to
be taken by a surveyor carrying out a Homebuyer’s
Report inspection or a building surveyor, I found
the evidence of both of great use.” Overall, the
judge preferred the evidence that was produced by
Mr & Mrs Hart’s expert.
In reading the article it appears that Richard Large
still believes that he was not to blame and others
were. As I referred to earlier this was my feeling when
I heard the summary of the case, but I changed my
opinion completely when I read the full judgement
from the 昀椀rst course. Phrases from this article that
stick out from Richard Large are “my failings were
trivial”, “seeing the plans would not prove anything
about what was actually built”, “the judge said ….
a visible DPC was essential”, and “I didn’t miss
anything”. It is quite sad that here appears to be a
surveyor who has not come to terms with the failings
in the survey and report that he carried out for Mr
& Mrs Hart.
Immediate reaction to the judgement
Following the issue of the judgement there were
many ripples through both the legal and surveying
world. It also concerned me as a structural engineer
who carries out occasional general surveys on houses
and comment on dampness. But the judge was quite
insistent to point out that this was a very unique case
and should not be read as to how all surveys should
be carried out. As I have said already, how can you be
held liable for dampness that was later found in the
property when no dampness was found during the
survey. But what this ignores is that Richard Large
did not look at the whole context of the building and
what his survey could or could not reveal. He made
no mention of the exposed nature of the site, nor
did he make proper comment on the fact that he was
unable to inspect all the damp proo昀椀ng elements,
yet said that he assumed that they must be present.
The comment about ‘seeing the plans would not
have changed anything’ is very revealing in Richard
Large’s inability to view the problems of a house that
has been comprehensively rebuilt using elements
of construction that require high standards of
construction to ensure watertightness (ie level
threshold openings) but appear to be beyond the
experience of the builder as we know that they were
constantly repairing the front door but it still leaked
rain water, that the building was in a very exposed
location for rain and sea water and that the building
had not been tested by a winter of rain and weather.
I feel that the least that Richard Large could have
done is to look at the drawings to see what damp
proo昀椀ng had been speci昀椀ed and where.
My personal opinion, that I have never heard anyone
bring up (and there are countless articles on the web
by lawyers and surveyors) is that a visual survey was
mostly a complete waste of time to ensure that the
building was free of defects. As it was a pre-purchase
survey then it would have been very unlikely that
the owner of the house, before the Harts bought it,
would have allowed any opening up to ensure that
all the required damp proo昀椀ng was present.
The other factor is the omission of mentioning in
the report the requirement to have a Professional
Consultant’s Certi昀椀cate (PCC). This created a kneejerk reaction where lots of surveyors suddenly felt
that they had to ask for a PCC for any conversion or
extension work carried out. But on this particular
house, it was the only way of establishing that all the
damp proo昀椀ng elements had been installed. There
was no way that this could be established by a purely
visual examination.
Lessons to be learnt by surveyors today
Surveyors should be clear in their report about the
limitations of an advice. In this case Richard Large
commented that he could no see any damp proof
course or membrane but assumed that they would
or should be there. So if it can’t be very veri昀椀ed then
its presence can neither be veri昀椀ed nor denied.
Reactions by Richard Large
There is a very illuminating article/interview by
Allan Millstein that is the third reference at the end
of this article. What you do have to remember is
however much you look at a court case and decide
EXPERT WITNESS JOURNAL
77
OCTOBER/NOVEMBER 2025
