- with Senior Company Executives, HR and Finance and Tax Executives
- in United States
- with readers working within the Accounting & Consultancy industries
The High Court, in Ashdrum Lodge Ltd T/A Kiernan Homes v Barbouti & ors [2025] IEHC 522, has provided important clarification on the duty of care owed by architects to their clients, the extent to which a client's conduct can affect an architect's ability to discharge those duties, and the role of contributory negligence under the Civil Liability Act 1961 in assessing an architect's liability.
Background
The owner of Derrybawn House in County Wicklow engaged a contractor and a supervising architect in respect of refurbishment works (Works) at the property. No formal building contract was executed. Instead, the parties operated under the Standard Blue Form RIAI Contract (2012 edition) and the Standard RIAI Agreement between Client and Architect for the Provision of Architect's Services (2007 edition) (RIAI Architect Contract) respectively.
The Works began in 2013 with an initial estimate of €360,000. However, due to ongoing instructions, the final cost exceeded €5 million. Relations between the parties deteriorated, culminating in the property owner dismissing the contractor and architect before the Works at the property were completed.
Legal Proceedings
Proceedings were initiated by the contractor for unpaid sums while the property owner counterclaimed alleging defects in the contractor's workmanship. These claims were ultimately settled but in the interim period, the architect had been joined to the proceedings as a third party. The architect conceded liability in respect of a number of defects but the key issue of whether the architect should have identified defects in the bedding mortar during visual inspections of the Works was contested.
Judgement
Ms Justice Stack of the High Court held that an architect's duty of care to their clients is determined by the scope and terms of their retainer and as such, in this case, the issues in dispute fell to be determined by reference to the Standard Services set out in the RIAI Architect Contract. The obligation was to conduct periodic visual inspections and if a defect was identified, to intervene to require correction. The court emphasised that this duty did not extend to continuous supervision nor did it amount to a guarantee of workmanship.
The High Court was satisfied that the architect's duty is as summarised in the English case of McGlinn v. Waltham Contractors Ltd. (No. 3) [2007] EWHC 149, which sets out inter alia that the frequency and duration of inspections should be tailored to the nature of the works going on at the site from time to time and the architect does not guarantee that his or her inspection will reveal or prevent all defective work. Therefore, the mere fact the bedding mortar was defective did not establish liability on the part of the architect and the High Court found that the defects were not ascertainable on periodic visual inspection.
Liability on the part of the architect was limited to other defects accepted by him and the balance of the claim, including in respect of the bedding mortar, was dismissed.
Importantly, the Court concluded that the property owner's conduct, including dismissing the contractor and excluding its workmen from the property prior to completion of the Works, dismissing the architect in response to attempts to administer the terms of the building contract and preventing the architect from inspecting the Works which were still ongoing, were unreasonable. The court held she was, therefore, guilty of want of care and contributory negligence within the meaning of the Civil Liability Act 1961.
Conclusion
The judgment confirms that an architect's duty does not implicitly include a guarantee of workmanship or continuous supervision. Instead, it is defined by the retainer. Liability in this case depended on the ability of the plaintiff to demonstrate negligence in the form of a failure to conduct reasonable inspections and a failure to see what ought to have been reasonably apparent on the conducting of those visual inspections.
The judgment illustrates the fundamental importance of having formal defined contractual terms in place so that all parties clearly understand their respective duties, obligations and entitlements arising throughout a construction project.
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.
