LINFIELD LTD v. TAOHO DESIGN ARCHITECTS LTD AND OTHERS

LINFIELD LTD v. TAOHO DESIGN ARCHITECTS LTD AND OTHERS

The Court held that under the Buildings Ordinance and Regulations the RSE's duties are confined to structural elements that sustain and transmit loads; cladding is an architectural, non‑load bearing finish and responsibility for its selection, preparation and installation lies with the architect and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
LINFIELD LTD v. TAOHO DESIGN ARCHITECTS LTD AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Linfield Limited; 1st Defendant: Taoho Design Architects Limited; 2nd Defendant: Progress Construction Limited; 3rd Defendant: Michelangelo Marble Limited; 4th Defendant/2nd Respondent: Greg Wong & Associates Limited; Third Party: Brooke Hillier Parker (a firm)
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
21 March 2006
Case Number
CACV313/2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (court of Appeal) / Judgment on Appeal From HCCT No. 68 of 2001; Judgment Handed Down 21 March 2006
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment below in favour of the 4th defendant upheld.
Legal Topics
Cladding, Buildability, Supervision, Duty of Care of Registered Structural Engineer (rse), Interpretation of Buildings Ordinance Cap.123
Source Language
en
Construction Law Professional Negligence Tort Contract Statutory Interpretation Building Regulations Cladding Buildability +3 more

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Linfield Limited

Plaintiff/appellant

Taoho Design Architects Limited

1st Defendant

Progress Construction Limited

2nd Defendant

Michelangelo Marble Limited

3rd Defendant

Greg Wong & Associates Limited

4th Defendant/2nd Respondent

Brooke Hillier Parker (a firm)

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (court of Appeal) / Judgment on Appeal From HCCT No. 68 of 2001; Judgment Handed Down 21 March 2006

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RSE owed duties to the employer in respect of stone cladding
  2. 2 Whether cladding constitutes part of the building structure for purposes of RSE duties
  3. 3 Whether the RSE was negligent in failing to ascertain the "buildability" of the cladding design

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that under the Buildings Ordinance and Regulations the RSE's duties are confined to structural elements that sustain and transmit loads; cladding is an architectural, non‑load bearing finish and responsibility for its selection, preparation and installation lies with the architect and contractor/subcontractor; the RSE was not negligent for failing to assess practical buildability of a design that was physically possible nor for not supervising cladding installation beyond structural fixings, and the appeal against the dismissal of the claim against the RSE was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment below in favour of the 4th defendant upheld.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Order nisi of costs in favour of the 4th defendant (Greg Wong & Associates Limited)