Daouk, M E (2024) The future of Approved Inspectors: liable or not liable? Proceedings of Institution of Civil Engineers: Management, Procurement and Law, 178(1), pp. 25-31. ISSN 17514304
Abstract
This paper examines the liability of Approved Inspectors to their contracting parties and third parties under the Defective Premises Act 1972. It contends that Approved Inspectors owe a duty of care to a broader range of claimants, especially when providing design input for dwellings. This perspective contrasts with the ruling in Herons Court v Heronslea (2019), which indicated that Approved Inspectors do not owe a duty of care under section 1(1) of the 1972 Act, a decision that may be misinterpreted as exempting them from liability. The paper distinguishes between two types of contracts for Approved Inspectors: Type A contracts, which involve only statutory functions as per section 49(1)(b) of the Building Act 1984 and regulation 5 of the Building (Approved Inspectors, etc.) Regulations 2010, and Type B contracts, which include additional design and professional services. In both cases, the contract serves as a critical basis for claimants to establish a duty of care, potentially allowing for concurrent relief in tort and statute.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | approved inspectors; contracts & law; inspection; liability |
| Index terms: | regulation, liability, duty, inspection, contracting party, professional service, statute |
| Subjects: | quality assurance, political science, practitioner, liability law, legal systems, contractual role, organization |
| Topics: | Contract Administration, Legal Issues, Organizational Design, Roles and Professions, Quality Management, Governance |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here