Case outcome ‘a warning for construction clients’
Lawyers at Fieldfisher say that a recent High Court decision provides “essential guidance” on the limits of professional liability for architects, and the consequences of client conduct in construction litigation.
The dispute at the centre of the case, Ashdrum Lodge Ltd t/a Kiernan Homes v Barbouti, arose from the extensive refurbishment of Derrybawn House, a protected structure in Co Wicklow.
The client (Ms Barbouti) engaged Kiernan Homes as contractor and Gilligan Architects as supervising architects.
In a note on the firm’s website, the Fieldfisher lawyers note that the project costs, initially quoted at €360,000, ultimately ballooned to over €5 million, all without a formal written contract.
When the relationship broke down, the client excluded both the contractor and architect from site and refused to appoint a quantity surveyor, leading to litigation over alleged defective works.
Main defects ‘not patent’
Ms Justice Siobhán Stack found that an architect’s duty was defined by the scope of their retainer and the standard of periodic visual inspection – not continuous supervision or a guarantee of workmanship.
The judge ruled that the main defects were not patent or reasonably discoverable during periodic inspections.
Ms Justice Stack also found that the client’s actions in unilaterally excluding the professionals from site – without contractual justification and without prior notice – and obstructing the final account process prevented further investigation and remediation.
As a result, all claims for liability against the architect were reduced, except for two conceded design failures, where damages were to be agreed between the parties.
In one of these cases, full liability was to be attributed to the architect, with liability for the other split 50-50 between architect and contractor.
1961 act
The Fieldfisher lawyers note that the judgment applied the Civil Liability Act 1961, which provides a mechanism for apportioning liability, determining the respective responsibilities of the contractor and architect.
The firm describes the case as “a cautionary reminder” that clients who disrupt contractual processes or prevent professionals from fulfilling their duties may forfeit or significantly reduce their entitlement to damages.
“For practitioners, the decision underscores the importance of clear contractual arrangements, proper documentation, and adherence to standard procedures in construction projects,” its lawyers add.
“The outcome demonstrates that the ability to successfully recover damages will be measured against a party's own behaviours and adherence to the contractual and statutory obligations,” they conclude.