Would you believe it!

[Mike Buckley]

Interesting article

http://www.ifsecglobal.com/author.asp?section_id=565&doc_id=561891

However it becomes even more interesting if you read the Judges comments:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/TCC/2013/3183.html

In particular 40:

Both Ms. Sinclair and Miss Jefford submitted that the expertise of Mr. Edwards is not in the relevant field because he is not just an architect but also an expert in fire safety. Mr. Edwards says (at paragraph 2.3 of his report) that he is "an architect, not a qualified professional fire engineer". However, he states also that he is a member of the Institution of Fire Engineers and has "special knowledge of fire safety matters in the context of the Building Regulations and other published construction standards and guidance". He has not been instructed to give evidence about the spread of the fire: that is addressed by another expert.

Also of interest 60- 62:

I now turn to the first group of allegations: that the guidance in Approved Document B, both the 1992 and 2000 editions, represented best up-to-date practice. This allegation has been deployed in response to the Defendants' averment that the advice in Approved Document B is not mandatory and that compliance with the Building Regulations may be achieved by other means.

The Claimants' proposed amendment, it seems to me, really raises a point of construction: does the guidance given in Approved Document B represent up to date best practice as that term is used in the contract? Section 7 of the Building Act 1984 provides that non-compliance with an approved document does not of itself render a person liable to civil or criminal proceedings, but that it may be relied on as establishing such liability.

It seems to me to be at least arguable that, as a matter of construction of the contract, a contractor who is obliged to design a building in accordance with best up-to-date practice must comply with approved documents. This is an argument that arises out of the facts already pleaded: namely, the terms of the contract (including the obligation to exercise best up-to-date practice), the existence of Approved Document B, 1992 and 2000 editions, the breaches set out in paragraph 26, the fire and the increased damage that is alleged to have resulted as a result of the absence of proper fire protection.

Looks like this case will run and run

[wee brian]

I understand the "knowing too much" issue. In Negligence cases the experts are often asked "would a competent person in your profession know about this and have done something about it?"

So you need a competent architect to answer that question, not a specialist architect.

Other than that, there's some juicy stuff in here although it looks like the case has gone on for so long that the've all lost interest.

[colin todd]

Wee B is right.  If you hire a plumber, you are not entitled to expect the expertise from someone with a PhD in plumbing, but only the expertise of the average plumber on top of the Cowcaddens omnibus.

[wee brian]

So, if we're talking about a fire risk assessor.............