Residential Development

Professional negligence | CPR35-compliant report produced | Ridge expert evidence preferred

Background

An architectural technologist practice faced allegations that design changes made during the development of a residential scheme constituted a “fatal design error” and fell below the standard expected of a competent professional providing architectural services.

A Ridge architecture expert was engaged by solicitors defending the architectural technology, to provide a CPR35-compliant report that considered the architect’s duties, the design development process and the professional standard of care. The report examined the evolution of the design, the purpose of draft drawings and the role of client review and approval within the RIBA Plan of Work.

The analysis demonstrated that the design changes formed part of a normal and reasonable Stage 3 design development process and did not fall below the standard expected of a reasonably competent architectural professional.

The Court preferred Ridge’s expert evidence and accepted the analysis regarding design development, professional standards and the role of draft design information. Judgment was awarded in favour of the architect and the counterclaim was dismissed.

Feedback

In the oral judgment given, the Court stated:

I agree with Miss Casson, that is to say, I prefer the evidence of Miss Casson.