What level of supervision must an architect provide on site?
When a contractor goes insolvent leaving defects, the employer looks to the architect. The duty is reasonable supervision, measured by whether it was enough for the job, and a missed defect is not always a breach.
Reasonable supervision, judged on the facts: the architect must inspect at intervals appropriate to the stage of work and check important matters without checking every detail, adequacy is measured by whether it was enough for the job as Alexander Corfield v David Grant held, and the mere existence of a defect does not by itself make the architect negligent
Reasonable supervision, judged on the facts of each case. The architect must visit the works at intervals appropriate to the stage of construction and check that the work generally accords with the contract, checking important matters without checking every detail. Alexander Corfield v David Grant held that adequacy is measured by whether the supervision was enough for the job, not by hours worked, and that the standard should rise where the contractor's competence is in doubt. A missed defect is not automatically a breach: in East Ham Corporation v Bernard Sunley the House of Lords observed that failing to discover a defect a reasonable examination would have disclosed may be no more than an error of judgment or a reasonable calculated risk. The overall duty is reasonable supervision, as Sim & Associates v Alfred Tan and McGlinn v Waltham Contractors confirm, and the mere existence of defective work does not, of itself, prove a lack of supervision or make the architect negligent.
| The duty | Inspect at intervals; check important matters, not every detail |
| Enough for the job | Alexander Corfield: adequacy is not measured in hours |
| The contractor factor | Supervision rises where competence is in doubt |
| A missed defect | East Ham v Bernard Sunley: not automatically a breach |
| Reasonable only | Defects do not, of themselves, prove poor supervision |
The problem
Where work proves defective and the contractor becomes insolvent and cannot put it right, the employer often looks to the architect, which raises how far the architect had to supervise the work. A typical appointment clause requires the architect to visit the works at intervals appropriate to the stage of construction, to inspect progress and quality and to check that the work is being executed generally in accordance with the contract documents. The architect is not required to check every detail personally, but should verify the important things, for example the ground formation beneath a concrete floor slab before that slab is laid.
Enough for the job
Adequate supervision is judged by whether it was enough for the job, not by hours worked, and the standard rises where the contractor's competence is in doubt.
What was adequate by way of supervision was not determined by the number of hours worked but by whether it was enough for the job. The architect required, but lacked, a skilled and experienced assistant or two, and the project descended into an inadequately controlled muddle. On the standard, the court held that the degree of supervision required is governed to some extent by the architect's confidence in the contractor: where something indicates a lack of competence in the contractor, the standard of supervision should be higher. An architect need not tell the contractor how to do the work, but must follow its progress and take steps to see that it complies with the general requirements of the contract as to specification and quality.
A missed defect
A missed defect does not by itself make the architect negligent.
Stone panels later fell because they had not been properly secured. On the architect's inspection duty, the House of Lords observed that the architect is not permanently on site but attends at intervals, and on arrival may face many important matters. A failure to spot a defect that a reasonable examination would have revealed does not automatically put the architect in breach; the lapse may amount to no more than an error of judgment, or a calculated risk that was reasonable at the time.
Reasonable supervision
The overall standard is reasonable supervision, and the presence of defects is not, of itself, proof that it was missing.
An architect is required only to give the building works reasonable supervision. The defective works were the result of the employer and contractor failing to reach a compromise, not of any failure by the architect, and the employer had not shown any real loss. On its own, the bare presence of defective work does not establish a want of supervision.
On a house so poorly built it was demolished, the court set out how an architect's inspection duty works. The number of visits should be guided by the nature of the work; the architect should instruct that important work is not covered up before inspection, and should attend at the outset of a particularly important element; defective work done in the architect's absence does not absolve the architect; reasonable inspection does not require going into every matter of detail; and the fact that the contractor's work turns out defective does not, on its own, mean the architect was negligent.
Practical steps
Pitch the number and timing of inspections to the nature and stage of the work, not to a fixed diary slot.
Raise the level of supervision once anything suggests the contractor is not competent.
Inspect important elements at the outset, and require that they are not covered up before inspection.
Do not equate a defect, or a defect found after certification, with negligence; the test is reasonable inspection.
As the employer, remember that recovery still requires proof of a real loss caused by the failure to supervise.
Authorities
| Authority | Citation | What it decides |
|---|---|---|
| Alexander Corfield v David Grant | (1992) 59 BLR 102 | Adequate supervision is judged by whether it was enough for the job, not by hours worked; the required degree rises where the contractor's competence is in doubt, and the architect must follow progress and see that work meets the contract as to specification and quality |
| East Ham Corporation v Bernard Sunley & Sons Ltd | [1966] AC 406 | Failing to discover a defect that a reasonable examination would have disclosed does not necessarily put the architect in breach; the omission may be an error of judgment or a reasonable calculated risk |
| Sim & Associates v Alfred Tan | (1997) | An architect is required only to give reasonable supervision; the bare presence of defective work does not by itself establish a want of supervision, and the employer must still prove a real loss |
| McGlinn v Waltham Contractors Ltd | [2007] EWHC 149 (TCC) | Inspections should be guided by the nature and stage of the work; important work should not be covered up before inspection; a defect done in the architect's absence does not absolve the architect; reasonable inspection does not require every detail; and a defect does not itself prove negligence |