13 Responsibility for design
Traditionally, building procurement methods drew a strict dividing line between the functions of design and construction. Scheer (2014) suggests that the modern conception of architecture originated in the Renaissance, which saw the crystallization of the idea that the architect’s role was to design, not to build. This division of responsibility is still a strong idea in modern times. Design, which includes not only the broad concept of the building but also matters of considerable detail, is generally considered to be the responsibility of the employer’s design team. This normally consisted of an architect or civil engineer, backed up where necessary by other specialist consultants such as structural engineers. Construction, on the other hand, is generally the responsibility of the contractor, whose obligation is simply to construct in strict accordance with the contract documents provided. Under such a procurement method, it is naturally important to decide whether any defect in the finished building is the result of a design fault or whether it arises out of bad construction, since this determines who is to be legally responsible for the defect.
Of course, not all procurement methods are of this traditional kind. Design and build contracts (dealt with in Chapter 4) are well-established arrangements under which legal responsibility for both design and construction lies with the same party. In this situation, the nature of a defect in the finished building may be less important. Even here, however, it cannot be completely ignored, for reasons that will appear below.
The distinction between design and construction remains important today, although it is more common for design to be carried out by several parties. The employer’s design team might carry out part of the design work, with contractors, sub-contractors and specialist supplies completing detailed design of building components or elements. The distinction between ‘build only’ and ‘design and build’ contracts is less clear cut and cannot be assumed from the form of contract used alone. Indeed, the NEC3 form was designed to be flexible in that it might be used anywhere between one extreme of build only or the other where all design is the responsibility of the contractor.
In dealing with liability arising out of defective design, we must consider first, the nature of design and its complexity; second, how the law actually defines design obligations; and third, which participants in the construction process may be liable in respect of design faults.
13.1DESIGN MANAGEMENT
Design management is best seen as an information processing system driven by innovative and/or creative solutions to problems of the client organization. One of
198 Construction contracts
the most difficult parts of construction design, particularly in architecture (which is typically more complex than civil engineering), is in defining the problem to which the construction project is the solution. This process is called briefing. Briefing, especially in architectural projects, is not simply a question of the client specifying what is wanted so that the design team can get on with instructing the construction team. The development of a good brief is an active process on behalf of the designer and the client. Such a document sets out a design philosophy that should be sufficiently comprehensive to guide all design decisions on a project but this ideal is rarely achieved in practice. The complexity of the information processing exercise is brought about because of the involvement of many specialist designers, each contributing a small part to the overall picture. Moreover, each of these parts interacts with the other. The co-ordination and integration of such a diverse range of inputs is a daunting task. It is no surprise that many projects are tendered on incomplete information! Indeed, it is often said that briefing continues throughout a project, as does design. While the focus of responsibility for project leadership may change from one stage to another, the activities are, generally, not discrete.
Prior to the commencement of a project, there will often be a protracted period during which funding is sought, and a period of urban planning, possibly connected with the acquisition of land. After the initial briefing stage, construction projects typically move through a series of stages: feasibility, outline design (or sketch scheme), detail design, contract preparation, construction and commissioning of the complete facility (Hughes and Murdoch 2001). The point about these various stages is that each involves different participants. Moreover, the nature of the task changes at each stage. Thus, as the mass of project documentation grows, different specialists come and go, decisions are made and recorded, the relative importance of different criteria changes and various interest groups partake in decisions that affect the nature and scope of the project. The concept of a design team containing a few consultants for the duration of the project is a gross oversimplification of an extremely difficult issue (Gray and Hughes 2000).
One of the most important difficulties is the overlap between design and construction. There is a distinction drawn between design and workmanship, which is more to do with who is taking decisions than with the nature of decisions. For example, a decision about fixings for a skirting board would be a design decision if it were specified in the bill of quantities, and a workmanship decision if the bill were silent on the issue (in which case, the operative on site may make the specific decision about the kind of nail or screw to be used). The substantive nature of the decision itself is the same in either case. Because of this, any arguments about design being complete at the time of tendering are specious. It must be recognized that in all but the simplest projects, the complexity of the process demands a continuing interaction between design and construction teams until the project is completed.
13.2DESIGN DUTIES IN LAW
Under this heading we look at some of the factors a court will take into account in deciding whether or not a designer is in breach of legal obligations. We are not
Responsibility for design 199
concerned at this stage with detailed questions of how those obligations arise or to whom they are owed.
13.2.1Standard of liability
From a legal point of view, one of the most interesting questions concerning a designer’s duty is whether it is limited to an obligation to use reasonable care and skill, or whether it goes beyond this to a guarantee that the design will be fit for its purpose. If the former is correct, it means in effect that a designer will only be liable if ‘professional negligence’ can be proved. The latter interpretation, on the other hand, would impose on the designer a type of liability equivalent to that of a seller or other supplier of goods.
Apart from its legal interest, this question also has practical implications, which are of crucial importance. As we shall see, the courts have made it clear that a guarantee of ‘fitness for intended purpose’ will fairly readily be implied into a design and build or package deal contract. Under such a contract, therefore, the main contractor will be strictly liable to the client for any defect resulting from an error of design. Now if, as is frequently the case, the actual design has not been carried out ‘in-house’ by the main contractor, but has been sub-contracted to either an architect or a specialist sub-contractor, the main contractor will seek to pass liability down the line to the actual designer. This, of course, can only be done if the designer’s liability under the sub-contract is at the same level as the contractor’s liability under the main contract.
An excellent illustration of the problem, and the strongest authority for subjecting a designer to strict liability, is the case of Greaves & Co (Contractors) Ltd v Baynham Meikle and Partners.1 The claimants there were employed under a package deal contract to construct a warehouse, the first floor of which was to be used for the storage of oil drums, stacked and moved by forklift trucks. The claimants sub-contracted the design of this warehouse to the defendants, a firm of consultant structural engineers, who knew precisely the purpose of the finished building. The defendants’ design did not make sufficient allowance for vibrations from the forklift trucks; as a result, the floor cracked and became dangerous, and the claimants became liable to the clients for the cost of replacement. The claimants accordingly sued the defendants to recover this cost, claiming that it was an implied term of their sub-contract that the design would be fit for its intended purpose.
It was held by the Court of Appeal that, on these facts, the defendants had been guilty of negligence and were accordingly liable. However, the importance of the case for present purposes lies in the court’s ruling that, even if there had not been negligence, the defendants would still have been liable for the failure of their design. This was because, while it could not be assumed that every designer would be taken to warrant the fitness of his or her design (that is, as a term implied by law into every design contract), such a term could be implied into this contract as a matter of fact. The defendants had always regarded their brief as being the design
1 [1975] 3 All ER 99.
200 Construction contracts
of a warehouse for a particular purpose, and could be taken as guaranteeing that it would be fit for that purpose when completed. This view was endorsed recently in
Trebor Bassett Holdings Ltd v ADT Fire and Security plc2 where the Court of Appeal would not impose any absolute requirement on the part of the designer and supplier that the bespoke fire suppression system for a factory would achieve an effective system. The proper construction of the engagement was limited to an obligation to exercise skill and care in the design of the bespoke system.
Notwithstanding the decision in Greaves, it must be recognized that the traditional legal position favours liability on the part of a ‘pure’ designer only where there is negligence, a position reaffirmed by the Court of Appeal in Hawkins v Chrysler (UK) Ltd and Burne Associates.3 The first defendants there, who had provided showering facilities for employees at their factory, accepted liability to one of their employees who was injured when he slipped on wet tiles. The first defendants then claimed against the architects who had designed, specified and supervised the installation of those showers. The Court of Appeal held that there was no reason on these facts to imply any warranty by the architects other than that they would use reasonable care and skill; there was no warranty that the materials selected would be fit for their intended purpose. While recognizing that this might create an anomalous distinction between a pure designer and a designer/builder, the Court of Appeal did not feel justified in raising ‘professional liability’ to a new level.
As mentioned above, the legal standard of design liability becomes important partly because of the law’s readiness to impose strict liability in design and build contracts. The basic legal position was described in Francis v Cockrell4 where it was said that:
when one man engages with another to supply him with a particular article or thing, to be applied to a certain use and purpose, in consideration of a pecuniary payment, he enters into an implied contract that the article or thing shall be reasonably fit for the purpose for which it is to be used and to which it is to be applied.
This principle was applied to a design and build contract in Viking Grain Storage v TH White Installations Ltd,5 which concerned a defective grain storage and drying installation designed and erected by the defendants. It was also accepted, though less conclusively, by the House of Lords in Independent Broadcasting Authority v EMI Electronics Ltd and BICC Construction Ltd.6 The contract in that case was for the design and erection of a 381 metre television mast at Emley Moor, Yorkshire. This was let to EMI as main contractors, and they subcontracted the work to BICC on virtually identical terms. The mast, which was of a novel cylindrical design, collapsed due to vortex shedding (induced by wind) and asymmetric ice loading. It was held by the House of Lords that, at the very least, EMI must be taken to have warranted that BICC’s design would not be negligent.
2 [2012] EWCA Civ 1158.
3 (1986) 38 BLR 36.
4 (1870) LR 5 QB 501.
5 (1985) 33 BLR 103.
6 (1980) 14 BLR 1.
Responsibility for design 201
Since it was negligent, EMI were liable to the clients and BICC were in turn liable to EMI. As a result of this finding of negligence, it was unnecessary to decide whether there would have been any strict liability for the defective design. However, the court stated that there probably would have been such liability.
The implication of a strict ‘fitness for the purpose’ obligation into design and build contracts will not, it appears, be negated by the mere fact that the actual design is carried out by a sub-contractor nominated by the employer. However, all the circumstances of the case must be examined. Where it is clear that the employer has placed no reliance whatsoever on the main contractor in respect of design, there will be no implied term. This occurred in the Irish case of Norta Wallpapers (Ireland) v Sisk & Sons (Dublin) Ltd,7 in which the roof of a factory was supplied and erected by a specialist sub-contractor nominated by the employer. Since the main contractor in this case had no option but to accept this subcontractor and to adopt the sub-contractor’s design, it was held that no warranty of fitness for the purpose could be implied into the main contract. (In IBA v EMI, by contrast, the main contractors were not bound to accept any particular design produced by the nominated sub-contractors.) The question of reliance on the discretion and skill of a contractor was also raised in Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council v Frank Haslam Milan & Co8 in which a contract specified that hardcore included slag. When the type of slag used in the hardcore expanded and caused the building to fail, the judge at first instance found the contractor liable for breach of the implied term that all materials will be fit for their purpose. However, the Court of Appeal overturned this on the ground that, at the time, no contractor knew that the type of slag used was unsuitable, and the contractor’s freedom to choose was based upon the assumption that all types were suitable. Therefore, the contractor’s discretion was not being relied upon.
Before leaving the ‘fitness for purpose or negligence’ issue, three other points are worth making. First, while it may indeed be easy for a court to imply the higher standard of obligation into a package deal contract, this cannot override any contrary express terms. In this connection, it should be noted that JCT DB 05 makes clear that the main contractor’s liability goes no further than that which would be incurred by an architect or ... other appropriate professional designer holding himself out as competent to take on work for such design (clause 2.17.1). Clause 2.19.1 of JCT SBC 11 deals in the same way with CDP works, i.e. the contractor’s designed portion. Similar terms are found in ICC 11. NEC3 simply notes, if Option X15 is used, that contractors are not liable for defects in the works due to their design so far as they prove that they used reasonable skill and care to ensure that the design complied with the works information. Thus, where these forms of contract are chosen, the contractor’s design duty is merely to use reasonable care and skill, and does not extend to a guarantee that the completed works will be fit for their intended purpose. By contrast, the FIDIC 1999 Red Book, at clause 4.1, notes that, unless otherwise stated, any contractor’s design shall be fit for the purposes for which it was intended, as specified in the contract.
The second point arises out of the practice whereby sub-contractors design their own work. It is of course very important for the employer, or the employer’s
7 [1978] IR 114.
8 (1996) 78 BLR 1.
202 Construction contracts
professional advisors, to ensure that the sub-contractor undertakes direct design responsibility, for example by entering into a collateral agreement.
The third and last point concerns the limits of professional indemnity insurance. Many of the policies held by architects and other specialist designers do not cover any form of liability stricter than negligence, so that liability under an implied warranty could well be left unprotected. Further, many contractors’ liability insurance policies do not cover the ‘design’ element at all. It is of course vital that such matters be checked thoroughly at the start of a project.
13.2.2Duration of liability
A designer, such as an architect or civil engineer, is often involved in superintending the process of construction. Where this is so, it is clear that the designer’s responsibility in respect of that design does not end when the contractor receives the necessary documentation and begins to build what has been designed. The architect remains under a continuing obligation to see that the design will work.9 As to the precise duration of this obligation, it undoubtedly lasts until the date of practical completion, almost certainly throughout any defects liability period, and probably until the issue of the final certificate.10 Indeed, the judge in one case suggested that consulting engineers might remain under a duty after completion to check and recheck their design in the light of new knowledge, and to inform their clients if new sources of danger come to light. Fortunately for engineers, this suggestion was unanimously rejected by the Court of Appeal.11
13.2.3Techniques and materials
One of the most important aspects of ‘design’ is the selection and specification of materials. In this, as in all other aspects, the designer is required to exercise reasonable care and skill. It should be appreciated that, where an architect specifies materials, there will be no implied warranty from the contractor that the materials used will be fit for their purpose (although the contractor’s implied warranty as to the ‘quality’ of the materials will normally be unaffected). It is therefore important for the architect to take such steps as are possible, such as testing or examination of other sites, to ensure the suitability of any new product to be specified. It would also be sensible to obtain, wherever possible, some collateral warranty from the supplier as to the product’s performance.
As with new materials, so with new techniques. The standard of care demanded of a designer is judged in the light of professional knowledge at the relevant time, what is called the ‘state of the art’. However, this does not mean that a designer may simply leap into the unknown without any legal responsibility. Indeed, the fact that there is no general experience and expertise to draw on in relation to a novel
9 Brickfield Properties Ltd v Newton [1971] 3 All ER 328.
10Merton LBC v Lowe & Another (1981) 18 BLR 130.
11Eckersley v Binnie & Partners (1990) 18 Con LR 1.
Responsibility for design 203
form of design may require the taking of extra precautions. As has been said in the House of Lords:12
The project may be alluring. But the risks of injury to those engaged in it, or to others, or to both, may be so manifest and substantial and their elimination may be so difficult to ensure with reasonable certainty that the only proper course is to abandon the project altogether ... Circumstances have at times arisen in which it is plain commonsense and any other decision foolhardy. The law requires even pioneers to be prudent.
13.2.4Compliance with statutory requirements
The proper carrying out of a design function clearly includes the task of seeing that the designed works can be carried out lawfully. This means that the works will not contravene Building Regulations, planning law or other relevant legal requirements. In this respect, as with other aspects of design, the law draws a distinction between someone who merely designs and someone who operates under a design and build contract. A mere designer, it appears, impliedly undertakes only to use professional skill and reasonable care, and does not warrant that the design will not contravene any relevant legal principle. Thus, where an architect-designed building failed to qualify for the office development permit that the client wanted, the architect nonetheless avoided responsibility. The court stated that the legal rules governing the matter were complicated and that the architect’s advice, though wrong, was of a kind that a reasonably competent architect might give.13
By contrast, a contractor under a design and build contract will be strictly liable to the employer for any breach of the Building Regulations. This point was established in Newham LBC v Taylor Woodrow (Anglian) Ltd,14 a case which arose out of the notorious collapse of a block of flats at Ronan Point.
Responsibility for a building which contravenes the law will usually fall, in the final analysis, upon the designer rather than the builder, at least where a traditional form of contract is used. Under JCT SBC 11 clause 2.1, for example, the contractor is made generally responsible for ensuring that all statutory rules are complied with. However, a contractor who has merely worked in accordance with the contract drawings or bills is protected from liability by clause 2.17.3. This protection is subject to the proviso that, upon discovering any discrepancy between these documents and the legal requirements, the contractor immediately notifies the contract administrator.
Not surprisingly, JCT DB 11 gives no such protection. Clause 2.1 makes it clear that the contractor is responsible for ensuring that the works comply with the law. This is so even where the Employer’s Requirements are at fault, unless the contract specifically states that these are in accordance with the law.
12Independent Broadcasting Authority v EMI Electronics Ltd and BICC Construction Ltd (1980) 14 BLR 1.
13BL Holdings Ltd v Robert J Wood & Partners (1979) 12 BLR 1.
14(1981) 19 BLR 99.