The recent case of Dhamija v Sunningdale Joineries and Others considers whether a quantity surveyor who values work that is "obviously defective" is negligent.
The Facts
The claimants (Dhamija) brought an action for damages against a quantity surveyor (McBains). In this action, Dhamija alleged that McBains had been negligent in valuing works that were obviously defective and Dhamija was seeking to recover damages on that basis.
The Issue
The issue considered was whether a quantity surveyor had a duty not to include in any valuation the value of works that were obviously defective.
The Decision
The leading authority on the obligations owed by a quantity surveyor in connection with defective work is Sutcliffe v Chippendale & Edmondson (1971) BLR 149.In line with that decision, it was held that the quantity surveyor owes no duties to positively determine the quality of works. The responsibility for determining the quality of works rests with the architect. Unless the quantity surveyor has ignored the express instructions of the architect, there is no basis for holding the quantity surveyor liable for including a defective item of work in a valuation.
Comment
This case helps to clear up some confusion arising from the views on this issue expressed in Hudson's Building and Engineering Contracts. In that textbook it is suggested that the quantity surveyor could be held liable for defects that were "so glaring" that they ought to have been seen by the quantity surveyor. Justice Coulson did not hesitate in concluding that Hudson's assessment of the law was "wholly unreliable".
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.
