Architect Negligence Case Study...

Background

Our client instructed a firm of architects to draw up designs to transform a semi derelict farmhouse into a modern, eco-friendly property with a heated indoor freshwater swimming pool. Some years after completion, the green roof on the pool house began to leak. As the repairs stated it became clear that the problems were of a much more fundamental nature. The walls were full of mould behind the cladding and surface rainwater had begun to wash way the foundations. It was a difficult case because before we were involved in the matter, the client, being a practical and pragmatic person had instructed his experts to investigate whether the building could be saved and if so how and at what cost rather than concentrating on identifying the cause of the problems. Their investigations took some years and remained inconclusive. By then we were up against the deadline to bring any claim.

What most people are unaware of is that it is not part of an architect’s duties to design a building which will stand up. That is the job for the structural engineers and the builder. The architects put this forward as the unattractive but correct first line of defence.

The architect added that it was the client who had instructed the structural engineers, so denying any responsibility for the integrity of the building.

The builder had gone into liquidation some years earlier so it was not possible to sue that company which would have been more straightforward.

The fact that the client’s own experts could not pinpoint the root cause of the problem with building allowed the architects to take full advantage of the situation to defend their position fiercely.

How we helped

We altered the thrust of the experts’ investigations.

We forensically went through a huge volume of emails which had passing between our client and the architects, to establish that it was the architect who had employed the structural engineers.

On further investigation of the paperwork, it became clear that the architect had allowed the builder to deviate from the architect’s own drawings and instructions and they had built the pool house to a lower standard which took no account of the high humidity in a pool building.

We then obtained further expert evidence which showed that the architects had failed to design the pool house adequately to take account of the terrain, had allowed the builder to deviate from their original design and had failed to bring in structural engineers at key stages of the build.

The architects then defended the claim on the basis that they were not appointed as contract administrators, so it was no part of their duty to oversee the works.

We responded to this defence on two fronts – first that the contract did state that the architects were to be the contract administrators and secondly that the real issue was not that the work had not been overseen but that there had effectively been no proper design of the structure in the way in which the builder had chosen to build the same.

With a 7 day trial fast approaching, we attended mediation which failed, as the architects still would not admit fault. However, we had insisted that a senior person form the architects’ insurance company attend the mediation. By then we were able to show the insurer that the architects were in fact in a far weaker position that they had first been led to believe. Our expert evidence firmly pointed to fault on the part of the architects and the paper evidence was against them.

We pressed on preparing for trial and only then did serious negotiations for settlement commence, as the insurers wanted to avoid the huge costs of the trial. The outcome of which was that our client’s case was settled on favourable terms for a substantial financial sum together with costs.