This document discusses design liability for various parties involved in construction projects. It establishes that professionals like architects and engineers have a duty to exercise reasonable care and skill. Designers are liable from the project's inception and must clarify the client's objectives and ensure site suitability. Contractors have limited design liability unless a contract specifies otherwise. Subcontractors may be liable if they are nominated and provide warranties to the client, but domestic subcontractors do not have independent liability from main contractors.

1. Design Liability
Lecture week 4

2. Who are designers
• Qualified Person:
– Professionals
• Architects
• Engineers
– Contractors
– Subcontractors
– Suppliers

3. Contractual liability
• Depend upon the contractual
agreement
– Standard form contract-PAM or PWD
– Conditions of appointment produced by
professional bodies

4. Duty to use reasonable care and
skill
Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee
Per Mc Nair J:
“Where you get a situation which involves the use of
special skill or competence…the test…is the standard of
the ordinary skilled man exercising and profession to
have that special skill. A man need not possess the
highest expert skill; it is well established law that it is
sufficient if he exercise the ordinary skill of an ordinary
competent man exercising that particular art”.

5. Liabilities of Designers
• Architects, engineers, surveyors
– The liability may commence from the inception of the project
1) Have to make clear of objectives of client.
Stormont Main Working Men’s Club v J Roscoe Mine
Partnership
Held: If the client has expressed his instructions in terms which
leave the architect in doubt as to what his purpose is, the
architect has a duty to ascertain what is the purpose he is
instructed to achieve.

6. 2) Responsibility to make sure that site, contours,
geology and dimensions are appropriate.
Moneypenny v Hartland
The engineer relied upon a third party as to the
quality of the ground and did not carry out drilling or
the required test.
Held: In the absence of proper delegation, the
designer is not entitled to rely upon the work of other.

7. The client will be personally liable if the designer is not a
qualified person.
Segar Restu (M) Sdn Bhd v Wong Kai Chuan
The def had mistakenly built the building on adjoining land to
the site. He relied upon a registered building draftsman and
not a qualified surveyor or architect.
Held: The plf is entitled for damages as def had trespass his
land.

8. • Generally, designers should not delegate the
responsibility unless there is a formal delegation.
Moresk Cleaners v Hicks
The contractors (plf) had agreed to carry out excavation
work for the HK govt under the HK PWd forms with BQ.
Due to adverse ground conditions, the engineers gave eot
which was more than doubled the time for completion but
the plf also claimed to be entitled for adjusted rates and
additional sums of payment to cover some unforeseen
conditions. The govt. contended that the plf was bound to
them and that the engineer could not adjust the rates.
P.C: The The plf has the right to claim the additional sums
based upon the adjusted rates as it was certified by the
engineer (whom had been formally delegated with the task
of design by the client).

9. Thomas Saunders Partnership v Martin Harvey
The plf (architect) was appointed by the client to design a
new office premises which include a 24- hour computer
centre. The plf had formally delegated part of the design
work to the def (the contractor) and was given a written
warranty by the def. Due to some design errors, the
architect had to compensate the client. The plf claimed
that def is liable to compensate them for the payment
they had made to the client.
Held: The plf is entitled to recover against the def in
respect of the written assurance.

10. Contractors
• Where the contractors are not
involved in design and build , their
design liability will limited to :
1) Temporary work- PAM cl 1.2
2) Permanent works expressly stated in the
contract document, to be contractor’s design.-
Pam cl.1.3

11. University of Glasgow v William Whitfield and
John Laing Construction
Contractor owe no general duty to the client
tp warn of design deficiencies. The duty
only arise where the contractually actually
knows of the practical weaknesses.

12. Brunswick v Nowlan
The resp (def), engaged an architect to design a house.
The app was the main contractor. After construction, the
roof leaked badly due to basic design inadequacies. The
resp sued the app for the resp for the defect.
Supreme Ct of Canada per Ritchie J:
“ The app carried out the work of building the house
without supervision of any engineer or the assistance of
the architect and I think that the appellant must therefore
be taken to have accepted the fact that the resp were
relying entirely on its skill and attention as a contractor…
in my opinion, a contractor of this experience should
have recognized the defects in the plans…I think the
contractor was under a duty to warn the resp of the
danger inherent in executing the architect’s plan.

13. Sub contractors/suppliers
• Nominated SC/SP
If the the NSC is made responsible for the design
work, the main contractor (who is contractually
responsible to the client), will have recourse to the
NSC for any inadequacies.
- It is a common practice, where NSC is requested to
give formal warranties to the client, which create a
contractual relationship with the client.

14. Greater Nottinghamshire Co-operative Society v
Cementation Piling and Foundation Co
The NSC entered into a direct collateral warranty for design
of their piling work with the plf (client). When the plf work
caused loss, the sued them.
CA: The warranty only covered design and materials but not
workmanship which was the cause of the loss…no action for
the economic loss suffered could proceed…

15. • Domestic SC/SP
The DSC has no independent existence
from the main contractors, therefore the
main contractors shall be fully
responsible for the design work carried
out by their DSC.