- within Real Estate and Construction, Consumer Protection and Employment and HR topic(s)
- with Senior Company Executives, HR and Finance and Tax Executives
- in United Kingdom
- with readers working within the Business & Consumer Services, Chemicals and Insurance industries
The Supreme Court of Tasmania considered that an engineer owed a duty to undertake its own investigations to ensure that the existing footings of a residential property were adequate to support a renovation and extension when providing engineering input into plans drawn by an architect.
In issue
- The Court considered whether a duty of care existed requiring an engineer to evaluate the adequacy of the existing footings when advising on a residential renovation and extension, and whether the failure to undertake such an assessment amounted to professional negligence.
The background
The plaintiff and his wife purchased a house in 2010 (which had been constructed in 1983) and undertook renovations to make it suitable as a retirement home for them. The renovations included alterations and extensions to the existing lower-level and the addition of an upper level containing 5 additional rooms.
The structural drawings of the renovation plans were drawn by an architect in November 2012. JSA Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd (the engineer) was engaged thereafter to provide (structural) engineering design services for the renovation, following which a 'set of working drawings' were prepared. The engineer admitted to providing engineering input and approving the plans that were submitted to the council, as well as attending inspections at the property on multiple occasions.
The renovations began in March of 2013 and were completed in November 2013. In February 2014, the plaintiff noticed cracking in the brickwork near the front door of the property. The cracking spread after it was first identified.
The plaintiff commenced proceedings against the engineer alleging that the footings for the whole of the renovated house were inadequate to support the new upper structure of the house. The plaintiff alleged that the engineer was negligent in failing to adequately investigate the dimensions of the existing footings and failing to carry out a sufficient investigation of the whole of the site. The plaintiff claimed damages of $1.5 million.
The engineer denied the allegations and submitted that the movement of the house and subsequent cracking was caused by the presence of a tree which was removed in 2015, and by excessive moisture levels in the soil. The engineer contended that even with additional footings, the house would have been subject to the same movement and damage.
The decision at trial
The Court was satisfied that the house was not subject to any significant movement and was 'performing satisfactorily' when the renovation commenced.
The Court considered whether the engineer had breached its duty of care by failing to demonstrate the standard of competence expected of a reasonably skilled structural engineer, specifically, if it had failed to conduct sufficient investigations into the size of the existing footings and the nature of the ground supporting them. The Court considered extensive evidence in determining the matter, including expert structural engineering evidence and evidence of prior repairs to the house.
The Court found that the engineer assumed responsibility for giving advice and design work for, and to enable, the renovations as an 'entire exercise'. The engineer's duty extended to verifying the sufficiency of the existing footings and carrying out necessary investigations such as soil testing to ensure that the footings were adequate for the intended works.
The Court found that the engineer breached its duty to advise on what work would be required to make the footings adequate to support the intended new structure, and that the risk of harm was both foreseeable and substantial.
Implications for you
Whilst specific to its particular facts, the judgment affirms the position that where the potential for harm is substantial, engineers have a duty to undertake appropriate investigations to verify the structural soundness of their work.
McDougall v JSA Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd [2025] TASSC 41
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
