Baxall Securities Ltd. & Anor v Sheard Walshaw Partnership & Ors [2002] EWCA Civ 9 (22 January 2002)

Baxall Securities Ltd. & Anor v Sheard Walshaw Partnership & Ors [2002] EWCA Civ 9 (22 January 2002)

The sole effective cause of both floods was the absence of overflows, a defect that ought reasonably to have been identified and remedied by the claimants or their surveyors. Since there was a reasonable opportunity for inspection that should have revealed the absence of overflows, the architects were not in a proximate relationship to the claimants regarding this defect, and thus not liable for the damage from the second flood.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 9
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Baxall Securities Limited; Claimant/respondent: Norbain SDC Limited; Defendant/appellant: Sheard Walshaw Partnership; Defendant/appellant: Shaw Whitmore Partnership; Defendant/appellant: Birse Construction Limited; Defendant/appellant: FK Roofing Limited; Defendant/appellant: Fullflow Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 January 2002
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Technology and Construction Court / Court of Appeal (civil Division) Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Latent Defects, Duty of Care, Causation, Architects' Liability, Surveyors' Duties, Flood Damage, Patent Vs Latent Defects
Tort Law Construction Law Professional Negligence Latent Defects Duty of Care Causation Architects' Liability Surveyors' Duties +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Baxall Securities Limited

Claimant/respondent

Norbain SDC Limited

Claimant/respondent

Sheard Walshaw Partnership

Defendant/appellant

Shaw Whitmore Partnership

Defendant/appellant

Birse Construction Limited

Defendant/appellant

FK Roofing Limited

Defendant/appellant

Fullflow Limited

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Technology and Construction Court / Court of Appeal (civil Division) Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether architects owed a duty of care for latent defects to subsequent occupiers
  2. 2 Whether the absence of overflows and underdesign of drainage were latent or patent defects
  3. 3 Whether the chain of causation was broken by the opportunity for inspection by the claimants' surveyors

Ratio Decidendi

The sole effective cause of both floods was the absence of overflows, a defect that ought reasonably to have been identified and remedied by the claimants or their surveyors. Since there was a reasonable opportunity for inspection that should have revealed the absence of overflows, the architects were not in a proximate relationship to the claimants regarding this defect, and thus not liable for the damage from the second flood.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Respondents to pay the Appellants 50 percent of costs
  • Application for permission to appeal to the House of Lords refused