Cases - George Fisher Holding Ltd v Multi Design Consultants
Record details
- Name
- George Fisher Holding Ltd v Multi Design Consultants
- Date
- (1998)
- Citation
- Cill 1362
- Legislation
- Keywords
- Construction claim - loss and expense claim - damages - remedial scheme
- Summary
-
The defendant was a firm of quantity surveyors engaged by the claimant in respect of a project to build a new warehousing complex for the claimant's business in Coventry. The defendant's duties pursuant to the terms of its retainer were wide-ranging, viz.:
- to obtain and approve design drawings and documentation;
- to carry out the function of 'Employer's Representative' under the building contract;
- to make sufficient visits to the site so as to monitor the contractor's workmanship and progress;
- to check on the conformity of the as-built works to the specification; and
- to report generally on the progress and quality of the works having regard to the building contract.
Soon after completion of the warehouse, serious leaks occurred which resulted from the 'risky' decision to install lap joints on the roofing. It was found that the defendant made no visits whatsoever to view the roof during the periods when the panels were being laid.
The claimant contended that the defendant was in breach of its obligation properly to supervise the works and in issuing a certificate of practical completion in circumstances where the works were clearly not finished.
The defendant denied liability on the following grounds:
- access to the roof was not safe;
- the defective formation of roof seals would not have been detected during an ordinary inspection in any event;
- it was probable that the roofers would simply 'put on a show' to give the impression that roofing was being laid correctly;
- the claimant was putting the defendant under pressure to gain access to the property which would be achieved through the issue of a practical completion certificate.
HHJ Hicks QC rejected all of the above defences, holding that:
- the defendant should have required the contractor to provide safe access to the roof;
- the defendant should have paid 'special attention' to the roofing process due to fact that the 'formation of joints was so obviously crucial';
- further, as the defendant had a responsibility to review the roof designs prior to construction, it was incumbent upon it to exercise the 'closest and most rigorous inspection and supervision of the process' as a result of its 'very risky and inadvisable inclusion of lap joints in such shallow slopes';
- it was part of the necessary skill of a competent inspecting officer to 'detect and make allowances' for workmen who are suspected of 'putting on a show';
- as the defendant lacked the requisite professional training to permit it to properly review the designs, it was under a duty to engage subconsultants in order to discharge its responsibilities;
- it was no defence to the improper issue of a practical completion certificate that the claimant was pressurising the defendant to gain access to the building.
HHJ Hicks QC remarked that a contract administrator may well find himself in a position where he is facing demands for access to the property from the client and pressure from the contractor for the issue of a certificate. In such circumstances, where (as in this case) the contract administrator is contract-bound to report generally on the progress and quality of the works, he is expected carefully to advise his client of the merits and demerits of the contractor's demands for the issue of a certificate and of the strengths and weaknesses of the client's bargaining position in order to reach a commercial compromise. Further, if any such compromise is stuck, the contract administrator will be responsible for making a record of the agreed terms and to seek confirmation from all relevant parties of the accuracy of such a record.