Cases - Oldschool v Gleeson

Record details

Name

Oldschool v Gleeson

Date

(1976)

Citation

4 BLR 103

Keywords

Contract administration

Summary

On a demolition and building project the builders negligently carried out their works resulting in the collapse of a wall. They admitted liability to the claimant employer and sought an indemnity from the employer's consulting engineer, arguing that the engineer owed a duty of care to the builder as regards (amongst other things) supervision of the works.

The court held that the manner of execution of the works in order to achieve the engineer's design was a matter for the builder. The engineer was not therefore under a duty to draw the builder's attention (for example) to the inadequacy of the shoring to the wall. (The court also observed that even if the engineer were to see a situation developing posing a serious risk of damage to property, the engineer's duty would go no further than to warn the builder to take necessary precautions.)

HHJ William Stabb QC considered whether a consulting engineer owes a duty of care to a building contractor, and if so, to what the scope of that duty is. He held that:

1. a consulting engineer does not have a duty to instruct the building contractor on how to do their work. The consulting engineer can offer advice to the building contractor; however, it is the responsibility of the building contractor to achieve the consulting engineer's design;
2. where a consulting engineer knows or ought to know that there is a risk of damage to a property, by reason of the building contactor's execution of the design, then the consultant engineer has a duty to warn the building contractor to take the necessary precautions.

Therefore, a consulting engineer will breach his duty to the building contractor if he fails to warn the building contractor to take the necessary precautions to abate the risk of damage occurring to a property.