Hodson Developments Ltd v GTA Civils

An engineer retained to merge an architect’s layout with a survey plan must follow that brief and has little discretion to make material changes. Changes beyond those reasonably necessary for the engineering conversion require prior notification and agreement. Delivery of drawings alone is not sufficient notice of a material departure.

The engineer need not ensure that the architect’s drawings comply with planning permission where planning matters fall outside the retainer. Other consultants may rely on the engineer to perform the agreed conversion. A consultant with no site-supervision role is not generally required to check setting-out or pegging-out, though an architect may remain under a limited duty to conduct a cursory examination for glaring errors.

The claimant developer engaged GTA Civils to prepare engineering setting-out drawings by merging the architect’s layout with a survey plan. GTA moved a house materially from the position shown in the architect’s drawings and planning permission, for sound engineering reasons, but did not notify the developer or architect.

The house was constructed in the altered position. The local planning authority served an enforcement notice, the house was demolished and rebuilt, and the developer claimed damages in contract and negligence. GTA alleged notification, contributory negligence, causation and inevitable loss. GTA also brought a Part 20 claim against the architect, alleging failures concerning planning compliance, checking drawings and site supervision.

The principal issues were the scope of GTA’s retainer, whether the change required notification, and whether the developer or architect bore responsibility for detecting it.

1. GTA’s contractual duty. GTA’s retainer was limited to engineering work, including merging the architect’s layout with the survey plan. That obligation allowed only changes reasonably necessary to give effect to the agreed engineering brief. The movement of Plot 10 substantially exceeded that scope and constituted a breach.
2. Notification. A material departure from the architect’s drawings had to be notified to the architect and developer. Supplying the setting-out drawings without explanation did not amount to sufficient notice. GTA’s sound engineering reasons did not confer a contractual right to make the change unilaterally.
3. Planning matters. GTA was not contractually responsible for ensuring compliance with planning permission. It was entitled to assume that the architect’s drawings complied with the permission. Conversely, the architect and developer were not obliged to provide GTA with the planning history or permission because planning matters were outside GTA’s agreed role.
4. Architect and developer. The architect was not the lead consultant and had no duty to supervise construction or undertake a detailed review of GTA’s drawings. It did have a limited duty to make a cursory examination for glaring errors, but was not negligent in failing to detect this change. Neither the architect nor the developer was contributorily negligent in failing to detect the position at the pegging-out stage.
5. Causation and damages. Had the developer known of the change, it would not have built in clear defiance of the planning authority’s concerns. The other alleged planning breaches would not, on the balance of probabilities, independently have required demolition. Judgment was entered for the claimant in the sum of £115,457. The Part 20 claim against the architect failed.