An architect designs a building under contract with A, who subsequently sells or lets the building to B. A serious design defect has just come to light, and B is thinking of bringing proceedings in tort against the architect. For reasons going back to Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 (that a ginger beer bottle was presumably opaque), B will have to show that the defect was latent, not patent.
The case of Baxall Securities Ltd v Sheard Walshaw Partnership [2002] 17 EG 158 affirms that, where the architect could reasonably have expected later buyers and lessees to commission a pre-contract survey, B cannot argue for a latent defect if it was of a kind that was reasonably discoverable by a professional so engaged. It is immaterial that B may have dispensed with a survey, or that the surveyor actually appointed by B failed to draw the defect to his attention.
An architect designs a building under contract with A, who subsequently sells or lets the building to B. A serious design defect has just come to light, and B is thinking of bringing proceedings in tort against the architect. For reasons going back to Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 (that a ginger beer bottle was presumably opaque), B will have to show that the defect was latent, not patent.
The case of Baxall Securities Ltd v Sheard Walshaw Partnership [2002] 17 EG 158 affirms that, where the architect could reasonably have expected later buyers and lessees to commission a pre-contract survey, B cannot argue for a latent defect if it was of a kind that was reasonably discoverable by a professional so engaged. It is immaterial that B may have dispensed with a survey, or that the surveyor actually appointed by B failed to draw the defect to his attention.
