Lawyer Monthly Magazine - May 2019 Edition

MAY 2019 49 Expert Witness www. lawyer-monthly .com managed, to make the appropriate resources available at the right time before and during the design process. An architect’s organisation should be scaled to the size of the work commissioned. Architects must have a full understanding of the applicable professional codes of practice. The Code of Practice of the Architects’ Registration Board applies to all architects. Architects who are also members of the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) must additionally abide by that Institute’s code. The RIBA promotes a scheme of Chartered Practice. Practices accredited to this scheme are required to maintain further additional standards and to meet criteria which include staffing ratios and management systems including quality, training and safety schemes. What can go wrong for architects? I have not seen one constant technical failure running through the cases on which I am instructed. Each matter has its own set of circumstances which require detailed consideration. It is often the case, however, that inadequate management of the design process and especially poor reviews of changes to a developing design that lead to a negligent failing. The RIBA publishes a detailed and comprehensive Plan of Work with related guidance on running architectural commissions. This extensive documentation includestheRIBA Job Book and the Handbook of Practice Management. Both are now at their ninth edition. This guidance has become an industry standard which is regularly updated. It would be a brave architect who thought such guidance could be safely ignored while at the same time maintaining a competent standard. In my capacity as an architect actively engaged in practice and by reference to current codes, standards, guidance and competent practice, I am able to form my opinion as to what constitutes the work of a competent architect acting reasonably in particular circumstances or where performance falls below such standards. It is important to find out what the architect was instructed to do and how the instructed tasks were executed by comparison to a competent execution of that work. The building design process should involve the generation and recording of many decisions, some of which are of complex reasoning, together with extensive and related data records. The design phase of more complex buildings can be measured in years. A detailed and painstaking analysis of such decisions, reasoning and data will invariably reveal a lack of competence, if it exists. Your reputation during dispute resolution I have no doubt that professional reputations are on the line for architects who are the subject of substantial claims. Claimants are exposed to substantial costs at trial if they would be unsuccessful. There is much at stake in such a dispute. A wrong strategy at an early date in pursuing a dispute can be expensive. More private forms of dispute resolution such as mediation or arbitration offer some shield to public exposure, although the rigour of a trial is missing. Building design is complex. It follows that deconstructing this to investigate real or perceived fault must be thorough. I have some concerns that the strict timetable of Construction Act adjudication while delivering a result in short order, cannot allow sufficient time for the more complex disputes to be properly understood, both by those preparing for adjudication and by those determining the dispute. It takes time to assemble a careful case whether acting on behalf of a claimant client or an architect as a defendant. Analysis of the detail is essential. In my experience, the soundest test of such a complex dispute is at trial. To avoid pursuing a wrong path by either side, the importance of early without prejudice discussion, mediation and settlement must not be forgotten. Clearly, such CONTACT John Perry B.Arch., B.Sc.(arch), RIBA, FRSA, ARB, MAE, AaPS Director T: 020 7838 5555 F: 020 7838 5556 BLDA Architects 211 Design Centre East Chelsea Harbour London SW10 0XF www.blda.co.uk processes should be informed by expert opinion on both sides. The full costs of a CPR Part 35 Compliant Expert Report might be avoided with a shortened report at an early date if the matter can be disposed of pre-trial. LM