Museum – Design – Architect – Claimants engaging defendant architects to design new museum – Project encountering design problems — Claimants seeking damages for breach of contract against defendant architects — Defendants claiming against third party contractors — Whether defendant and third party liable for breach of contract — Claims allowed
Between 2007 and 2011, the new museum of Liverpool was built under the management of the claimant trustees. It had a dramatic and interesting design with sweeping roofs clad in aluminium and half amphitheatres comprising concrete steps and seats at the north and south end. Internally, there were four levels with two types of suspended ceilings, SAS and rmstrong ceilings.
The defendant company carried on business as architects and designers and was responsible for the principal design work on the museum. The third party contractors were retained by the claimant to carry out the construction works together with certain elements of the design. The construction of the building was beset by problems in relation to the two types of ceiling and the steps, seats and terraces which comprised part of the internal design of the museum. In mid-2011, the ceilings collapsed due to inadequate installation. The seats, steps and terraces also suffered from overall design problems.
The claimant subsequently commenced proceedings against the defendant for breach of contract. The defendant commenced proceedings in turn against the third party under CPR part 20. Prior to the hearing, the defendant admitted liability in respect of the SAS ceilings.
Accordingly, the principal issues were (i) whether the defendant had been in breach of contract in respect of the steps and seats and the Armstrong ceilings; and (ii) whether the third party had been in breach of contract in respect of the steps and seats.
Held: The claims were allowed.
(1) On the evidence, it was clear that the relevant architects within the defendant company had no real understanding about the geometry for the steps, seats and terraces. Accordingly, the defendant had fallen below the standard to be expected of a competent architect because it had failed from start to finish to appreciate or understand basic geometry. It had also failed in its design to understand or illustrate the central feature of the junction between the step and seat units that, in order for the treads of alternate steps to align with the tops of the seat units, the seat units would have to project across the valley and that those units needed to be shaped with appropriate chamfers or bevels on the underside, in order to avoid running into the plane of the structure beneath the steps. Moreover, the defendant had never applied its mind to assessing, let alone understanding, what the requirements for the steps and seats should have been. If it had acted competently and with reasonable care, it would have specified at least a minimum life of 50 years with specification requirements, which erred on the side of caution to secure that minimum life. The defendant had failed to discharge its duties in relation to the steps and seats which had been architectural features and within their contractual sphere of design responsibility and had failed to design or procure the design of the steps and seats. Even though reinforcement detailing and placement had been the contractual responsibility of the third party, it had been for the defendant to provide or procure the provision of the requisite design criteria to enable the contractor to design effectively. The defendant had not only failed to do what it had been employed to do, but had also failed to exercise any care in relation to the whole issue of concrete cover.
(2) The third party contractor could not be criticised for putting forward the 10mm gap between the concrete units as the size of the gap had not been part of its design obligation. However, although as a matter of workmanship there would be some allowable tolerance on the gap of 10mm, the third party had been in breach of contract for failing to fit the units even within a reasonable tolerance in a significant number of cases. The third party had also been in breach of contract in respect of the concrete cover as it had failed to comply in a not insignificant number of instances with the 25mm cover requirement. Furthermore, it had failed to exercise reasonable care and skill in designing or completing the design of the reinforcement in the seat and step units.
(3) As regards the Armstrong ceilings, the expert evidence confirmed that there were numerous workmanship defects and that the ceilings were not installed in accordance with the specified requirements. No competent architect exercising reasonable care and skill could, should or would have allowed the deficiencies present to be incorporated or remain in place. If the defendant had inspected, carefully or at all, the Armstrong ceilings, it would immediately have seen that they were being installed carelessly and in a potentially dangerous way. It followed that liability in relation to the Armstrong ceilings had been established on a balance of probabilities.
(4) In relation to quantum, there would be judgment for the claimant against the defendant for the sum of certain other expenses. There would be judgment for the defendant in the Part 20 proceedings in the sum of . A further judgment in respect of quantum relating to the ceilings claim would be made at a later date.
Sean Brannigan QC (instructed by DWF LLP, of Liverpool) appeared for the claimants; Paul Reed QC and Brenna Conroy (instructed by Plexus Law) appeared for the defendant; Jonathan Lee (instructed by Pinsent Masons LLP) appeared for the third party.
Eileen O’Grady, barrister