Yes, where the temporary works threaten the permanent works: Hart Investments v Fidler held that an engineer employed for the permanent works, who sees temporary works that are dangerous and causing immediate peril to those permanent works, must take such steps as are open to him to obviate the danger, and is liable for breach of an implied term if he does not

Yes, where the temporary works threaten the permanent works. Hart Investments v Fidler held that an engineer employed by an owner for the permanent works, who sees a state of temporary works that is dangerous and causing immediate peril to those permanent works, must take whatever steps are open to him to remove the danger. On the facts a facade collapsed for want of propping to a retaining wall, and the engineer, who had a dual role and had visited the site, was liable for breach of an implied term in his engagement, with the court adding that it would also have found a duty in tort on the assumption-of-responsibility principle in Henderson v Merrett Syndicates. The duty is not only to act on a danger the engineer happens to notice: it extends to making regular inspections so that dangers are found. A shortcoming in the temporary works is first a matter for the main contractor, but where the contractor is no longer in business the engineer can be the one held responsible.