Professional Liabilities Back to Basics in Challenging Times

An engineer’s client has engaged solicitors and commissioned an independent expert witness report which is highly critical of the engineer’s work.

This satisfies the objective test outlined above, but if all of the engineer’s staff are oblivious to these facts then the subjective test is not satisfied and the circumstance is not notifiable. It will become notifiable as soon as any such knowledge reaches the engineer, whether by the arrival of the solicitor’s letter or an unofficial tip off that such a letter is in the pipeline. An architect is worried because recent invoices remain unpaid. The lay client is a difficult character and is on a steep learning curve with his first construction project. He has not reacted well to some unforeseen additional contracting expenses which the architect, as project manager, regards as normal but which the client hadn’t anticipated. On the face of it this probably doesn’t satisfy the objective test, regardless of how nervous the architect might feel that the client is unhappy. The mere fact of working on a project which is either technically challenging or involves some volatile personalities will not generally be sufficient in itself to satisfy the objective test. The fact that fees are outstanding is similarly not sufficient. There must be something more than this, such as an indication from the client that the fees remain unpaid because he holds the architect partly responsible for the losses he is incurring. The ventilation system installed as part of a new build extension to a school appears not to be performing as intended. Several classrooms are suffering from poor air quality and uncomfortable temperatures as a result. The school alert the design and build contractor who forward the email chain to both the designer and specialist subcontractor since, pending further investigation, it is not clear whether design, installation or both are at fault. The engineer reviews his design and can find no problems with it. Furthermore he suspects that the contractor is to blame because there were numerous examples of poor workmanship and deviation from drawings on other elements of the scheme.

On balance this probably would be notifiable notwithstanding the engineer’s preliminary conclusions. The fact that investigations are ongoing and the risk that they might result