Cases - Alexander Corfield v David Grant

Record details

Name

Alexander Corfield v David Grant

Date

(1992)

Citation

59 BLR 102

Keywords

Contract administration

Summary

When considering the question of what was sufficient supervision for the architect to have undertaken, the judge said that it should be asked:

'whether it was enough ... The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Was the attention given enough for this particular job'.

To the extent that this suggests the architect's duty should be measured by reference to the result achieved, such an interpretation was expressly disavowed by the same judge in Consarc Design v Hutch. This case does confirm, however, that the supervision required from time to time will vary depending on the nature of works being carried out. Certain jobs may require exclusive attention, while other stages of the works may need only looking at from time to time (cf. Brown & Brown).