ARCHITECT’s DUTY OF CARE TO SUBSEQUENT OWNERS LIMITED BY TERMS OF RETAINER

Bellefield Computer Services Ltd v E Turner & Sons Ltd and Horace D Watkins and Alan Best (unreported, Technology and Construction Court, 9 November 2001)

Mr Justice Forbes in Bellefield Computer Services Ltd v E Turner & Sons Ltd and Horace D Watkins and Alan Best , unreported, Technology and Construction Court, 9 November 2001, followed the reasoning of Judge Bowsher QC in Baxall Securities Ltd v Sheard Walshaw Partnership (a firm) [2001] BLR 36 (discussed in our April 2001 issue pp.1–3) in concluding that an architect can owe a duty of care in tort to a subsequent owner of a building for latent defects in the building in respect of which there was no reasonable possibility of inspection. However, crucially, he held that the scope of the duty of care owed by the architect to the subsequent owner was governed by the express and implied terms of the contract under which the architect was retained. On the facts of the case the architects’ role was held to be an unusual one, in that their engagement was for the provision of ‘partial architectural services’ and that their role was, to a significant extent, responsive in nature. This being the case, the scope of the duty of care owed by the architects was limited in nature and did not extend to the particular design issue which was the subject of the case.